Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

new rule?

It does not appear as a rule but is being cited more. The non-existant rule is "If the DYK article has bare URL citation, it will be rejected for DYK".

I think this is not good. If so, DYK becomes more of a rules stickler. I agree that bare URL's look not as nice. But article quality is far more important. If an article is not written well, it does not matter if all the references are pretty.

Let's establish once and for all that bare URL are not the most optimal but are not grounds for DYK rejection. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does this matter? The worst that happens is some reviewer says "everything looks ok, but please clean up the references first". Then someone cleans up the references (takes like 5 minutes, unless you take a detour to complain about it first) and the article is good to go. Heck, it might even encourage good editing habits. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In short, I disagree with this proposal, but the rules can be clarified on that. A longer answer is bare urls can be easily formatted with Reflinks. If they are not formatted then those links which were relocated may be lost - the Wayback machine has a limited coverage, and it is the title (and publisher) which allow recovering the ref. Most DYKs are written as "fire and forget", thus if we educate newcomers about existence of Reflinks, this will save from later troubles. Materialscientist (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rjanag and MS. Bare URLs only give you the webhost. A properly formatted ref readily gives you much more, so it's not just a matter of appearance. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ec: ::If I have to give a ranking to the question "Is this answer helpful?", I would defer out of politeness from answering Rjanag but would give ***** to Materialscientist. Thank you for the link. I was doing it manually, which is very difficult. In fact, I will paste the link to my user page for future use. You are a doll! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, front page stuff should actually be good. I can think of at least 2 100+ DYKers who know how to do everything and sometimes used to chuck everything unformatted and tried to bludge and not fix it up (one also never helped to process). It should definitely be enforced on oldies as they shoudl set a proper example and don't need a morale-boosting pass unlike a newbie YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

See Rule D3 on Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules. Reviewers are hardly making this one up. Courcelles 01:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the reasoning above and the rule. An article should look as good as it can, within reason, and refs aren't hard to clean up. For me, I activated this neat gadget on my page editor that helps make em' really quick. It is under your preferences/gadgets and is called RefToolbar.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a long-standing rule, listed as Additional Rule D3. Bare URLs are and should be grounds for rejection. It's easy to fix, and it does matter. cmadler (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Image in prep 2 non-free

The image being used as the for what is currently Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 for the Ignace Michiels has a copyright watermark on it but it's on commons as a free image. The uploader has only one edit there and probably does not understand policy. This image should be deleted and be swapped out of being the lead hook. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I promoted this hook on the basis that if the image is on Commons, it must be free. I can move that hook (without the image) to prepextra and replace it with another lead hook. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I (nominator) also don't know much about picture copyright. I found it on the nl-WP and concluded that it was free. If the hook appears on Sunday (it looks like it to me) it might be changed to reflect that he does it again that very day, play the Requiem and In convertendo Dominus (nom 21 August), among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the image is actually OK, though it should be cropped to remove the watermark. The credit in the watermark matches the username of the uploader; it's reasonable to think that the uploader of this image is the copyright holder, and they have given permission for use under GFLD and CC-BY-SA. cmadler (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's shaky at best. Better to be safe. Perhaps try to contact the uploader. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. AGF, the image is probably the uploader's (and I can't find it on the net anywhere else), but it's difficult to be sure - best to contact the uploader and get them to fix the issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is he has no edits on en wiki, only one on Commons, and no email enabled. The odds of getting a response are essentially non existent. Ideas? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a website for the photographer or another public domain image.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with this image. There's nothing indicating that the uploader isn't the photographer as they claim, and, as somebody else rightly remarked above, the copyright mark on the image matches their username. Which means the copyright mark and the free license are no contradiction whatsoever (if XYZ licenses the image under cc-by-sa, it's still technically their copyright after all.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance on getting 2010 China National Highway 110 traffic jam up to DYK

Any interested in getting 2010 China National Highway 110 traffic jam up to a DYK? It is a fascinating topic. Remember (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since it is currently featured in ITN, it's not eligible for DYK. cmadler (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It's a moot point now (I didn't add it to ITN), but people are trying to delete it so maybe it won't even be ITN much longer. Remember (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* I asked about whether there were any similar pages at Wikipedia:Rd/h#2010 China National Highway 110 traffic jam and apparently there are not any on WP, which suggests that this might be a unique event. Could it be the longest (time or distance) recorded traffic jam in history? In which case it seems, to me, it is notable. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If the AfD results in a merge and you can 5x China National Highway 110, I think it is eligible for DYK.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall, btw, that there is an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records for a longer traffic jam in France, though I don't think it lasted as long.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hook deleted from main page

I decided to go through and check about my older hooks to link them to the archive on my DYK page, when I noticed that an article I wrote about Taylor Vixen wasn't linked in the correct month's archive. I looked at the talk page of the Taylor Vixen article, and sure enough, it lists that the hook was posted on the main page (see here for the talk page). I then went through the archive of the DYK template to see what had happened, and I found that User:DS deleted my hook while it was on the main page about an hour after it was put up. I'm not usually too worried about this kind of thing and it happened a month ago, but I think this sort of thing should just be avoided in the future. If someone had let me know I would've been able to replace the hook with something a little less juvenile but I heard nothing-- I think we should extend authors the courtesy of letting them know that their hook was taken off the main page. Nomader ^(Talk) 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of reading about DS deleting hooks from queues. What steps can we take to stop these out-of-process deletions by this user? cmadler (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As indicated in the past discussion above, removal from the queues is not as mischief per se, but the hooks should be returned to T:TDYK with a comment. This was pointed to DS before and I also have asked that personally. Thus maybe we should move on. Materialscientist (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomander is talking about removal while on the main page, not just from a queue. Seems like something that shouldn't happen based on the unilateral decision of a single person, but rather should have been discussed at WP:ERRORS (assuming it wasn't). EdChem (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that DS should be counseled that the best time to bring something like this up is on the suggestions page, and if he makes a practice of deleting hooks from queues and the Main Page, it could be construed as wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly strong consensus that hooks should not be removed from the queues or Main Page without appropriate notifications and discussion. That being said, the removal prompting this discussion occurred on July 12. As this was several weeks before the primary discussion on this issue, I would recommend we give DS the benefit of the doubt and wait for an instance of this problem from after the discussion before escalating to the next step in the dispute resolution process (probably an RFC). --Allen3 ^talk 12:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just talking about a polite note with perhaps a link to this discussion. No formal action.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly strong consensus that hooks should not be removed from the queues or Main Page without appropriate notifications and discussion

Um, no there isn't - if anything the opposite. The only "strong consensus" in relation to this issue is that hooks that are removed are returned to the Suggestions page or to this page for further discussion.

As for removing hooks directly from the main page - while this has not had much discussion up to now, the fact is that admins not active on DYK have not infrequently removed hooks they don't like, so it might be rather difficult to prevent, although I certainly think hooks so removed should be brought here for more discussion in just the same way as when they are removed from the queue. Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I completely agree, this happened nearly a month and a half ago now. A small note on his talk page seems alright by me. I just wanted to bring this up because I noticed that it happened-- as long as it doesn't happen again I'm willing to let it slide. I just wanted to make sure that we established that hooks shouldn't be removed from the main page without discussion either before or after removal, and that seems to be the consensus so I'm not too worried about it. I guess I should ask-- as it was put on the main page for about an hour, should it be re-added to the archives? Nomader ^(Talk) 13:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was looking through the DYK history, and I've noticed a couple other instances where DS has removed content from the main page ([1], [2]). These articles show on their talk pages (Talk:Park51, Talk:Soda Popinski, Talk:Carl Gordon (actor)) that they appeared on the main page, but none of them appear in the archives due to their removal. Should they be re-added? Nomader ^(Talk) 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For Park51, the hook that was removed was for Cordoba House, which now redirects to Park51. A hook for Park51 was added back, and that hook was added to the archive. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion' - maybe the edit notice could be added to giving details of what should be done should an admin feel that a hook should be removed whilst it is on the main page. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds like an outstanding idea-- maybe it could direct admins to leave a notice on the talk page of the hook which they've removed, and to place the hook back in the suggestions page? Nomader ^(Talk) 21:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City, Virginia

Question for you DYK folks...since I found the Stephens City, Virginia article in 2007 as a sub stub, I (along with a host of others) took it to GA, FA, and on September 5, TFA. The DYK Check application says it isn't 5x in 500 edits, but I can't see how that is possible with the amount of work that has been put into this article. Is it possible to safely say the article has been taken well past 5x or do I have to rely on what the DYK Check application says? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would use common sense. A scan through the history suggests that the article size was relatively stable over the last (roughly) 800 edits. The only massive expansion was on 3 June 2007. Materialscientist (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and most of that massive expansion has been knocked down considerably, probably 85% of it was cut or knocked down to a sentence or two. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, and for future reference, can a TFA or even one nominated be eligible for DYK? Given the FA standards, editing and review, I'm not sure if this is even possible though. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It certainly can but it must either be a new article or a 5x expansion within about 5 days. cmadler (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is exceedingly unlikely for a current FA to be expanded 5x. Oryzomys was promoted to FA while it was on DYK, though. Ucucha 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I misread the question. I was thinking of it as asking whether an article improvement resulting in a FA could also qualify an article for DYK. But you are right, if an article is already FA, it is very unlikely that a 5x expansion is going to happen. cmadler (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know Dincher and I expanded Ricketts Glen State Park in a sandbox over a few months, then did a history merge and got a DYK. When we first moved it to article space it was a 4.8x expansion, but we took it to Peer review and suggested cuts there shrank it to 4.5x expansion by the time it was checked and passed as a WP:IAR case here. It then passed at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If it can't be taken to DYK, that's OK, it isn't necessary, it is just the only thing this article hasn't been to. Would be nice it if I could include DYK in with the GA, FA and TFA, but isn't necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, DYKcheck says the article hasn't been expanded 5x in the last 500 edits, which is true. Shubinator (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this is better suited to another thread, but why are the criteria for expansion so much higher than those for creation? It's not really hard to dump 1500 characters of prose into a blank space, but expanding an existing article fivefold, unless it's a tiny stub, is incredibly difficult. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it ensures that the articles which are being sent to DYK are truly "new" articles-- the point of DYK is to showcase new content on the main page. A fivefold expansion doesn't include much of the original content and for most purposes can be considered a new article contentwise: if you only double the size of a good sized article, often it will include a good portion of text that's from the original article, thus making it not really new. Nomader ^(Talk) 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My thinking on this was, with all the work that was put it, taking it from a sub-stub to TFA in under 500 edits, it should have been 5x expanded by now. But again, like I said above, if this is the one thing that the article misses, I am cool with that. DYK is kind of a pat on the back for a good start, TFA is an Oscar in my book. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it has, but it was expanded 5x from what it was over 2,000 days ago. It would have to be expanded within the past five days in order to pass at DYK. Congrats on the TFA and sorry I can't bring you better news, but it's an outstanding article anyhow, DYK or no. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

@Nomader: Thanks and no worries. Like I said, DYK is the pat on the back for a good start, TFA is the Oscar. I feel with the TFA, I have gotten more pats on the back than I ever expected. So I am cool with this not able to go to DYK. I have other articles in the works, so I will take those to DYK as necessary. We can mark this resolved, unless you all want to discuss the point HJ brought up. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 hook 2

The reviewer on my 1977 NBA Draft DYK suggestion reviewed and verified the ALT2 hook. But the hook listed on the queue is the main hook that was not yet verified and also may have some problems according to another reviewer. I think the ALT2 hook should be used. — Martin tamb (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Replaced. One can argue whether main hook is appropriate or misleading, and whether it is more interesting, but IMO, ALT2 is interesting too. Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Martin tamb (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cantata on Sunday

I enjoy seeing several of my hooks in the queues, but remind of the one in Special occasions 29 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it in for Sunday. But I wonder how in editing the most important word got lost, in 1725 he FINALLY .... It was quite unusual for Bach to use a text ten years old, normally he would take something really contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the word "finally" is that it is supported by neither the article text nor supporting source. As a result, when performing the hook review I was left with the choice of either rejecting the hook or removing the single offending word. Given this choice I went with making the small wording change that allowed the hook to be promoted. --Allen3 ^talk 15:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. I took it from the book in German and forgot that it is not mentioned in the web source. - To the next one, please, for 5 September, would you or someone else please have a look. This time it's a singer, because all three cantatas for the 14th Sunday after Trinity were already covered. I like to have some time left for a discussion about the hook like above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Factually incorrect hook in now Queue 1

• "that both Patrol 35, based in Israel, and Tsagaan Khass, based in Mongolia, are openly neo-Nazi organizations?"

The problem is, the hook is unsupported by the article. The hook is in the present tense. The article describes a 2007 incident and does not say that the group is still active. It is rather awkward to accuse Israel of having an active New=Nazi group when the article is weitten entirely in the past tense.AMuseo (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Opportunity for backlog alleviation

The RHS is very long today and 3-4 hooks each could be squeezed into the three remaining DYK updates. My computer is too slow to do much DYK processing nowadays, with the nom page YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Capping daily nominations

Checks of Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count show that after a period of slow by steady decline, the backlog is once again growing. A check of the suggestions page also shows that WikiCup contestants are once again submitting large numbers of articles in apparent anticipation of the final round of this year's contest starting tomorrow. As we have not had the time needed to work off that backlog that occurred from the last round of WikiCup, it appears inevitable that new discussions on ways to deal with the backlog will soon occur. Instead of repeating the usual suggestion of raising minimum article size, I would like to propose an alternate system: capping the number of nominations each user is allowed to make each day.

The scheme I envision is that each user be allowed to submit a maximum of 4 (an average of one hook per update) nominations under each days header on the suggestions page. Any individual desiring to nominate more than this number of articles for a single day would need to either submit multi-article hooks or stagger their article creations across two or more days. As the individuals that submit more hooks that this are almost always experienced users who should be familiar with how to utilize user subpages, the primary problem this scheme would create is a small logistical cost of requiring users to move only a limited number of entries into the article namespace on a single day.

Enforcement of this provision should be similar to the way we handle nominations coming in after the 5 day nomination period. That is the rule is largely ignored for minor violations or when the backlog is small, but adhering to the letter of the rule in periods of high backlog and days with submissions significantly outnumbering the quantity of hooks we can run on a single day. --Allen3 ^talk 17:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, especially since it allows "outs" for minor violations or when the backlog is small. Also, I think a key point is that it doesn't limit the number of DYK credits, since multi-article hooks are allowed. So users for whom piling up DYK credits is important (as in the case of WikiCup) still have a way to do it, without aggravating our backlog. cmadler (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I could live with this, provided the cap is explicitly on hooks, never on articles; as written above. (Anyone who can actually churn out four DYK-length articles in a day is probably writing on similar enough subjects to combine hooks anyhow.) Courcelles 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds reasonable. Nsk92 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I find this proposal both reasonable and laudable. - Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal, but would suggest dropping the limit to 3 or even 2 nominations a day. I've seen users submit 5 to 6 noms under one day. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The WikiCup rules need to be changed to calculate total prose size instead of article count as there are more than a few people flooding GAN with 2kb articles on sportspeople who played 2-3 games and that kind of thing, and the same here. The obvious thing that is happening is microslicing, and if that's the way the rules are, that's what will happen YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I could go as low as 3, but I think 2 per day is too low. cmadler (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, would this apply to all nominations, or just to self-nominations? Every so often I'm in the mood to prowl NewPages and nominate articles by new or inexperienced users to get them a bit more exposure. I'm not worried either way, as I haven't gone over about four a day since 2007, but I figured if we *are* going to add a new rule, it should be clear to everyone exactly what we're talking about. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposal. Another possibility, though possibly more difficult to monitor, would be a limit of X hooks per week or Y hooks per month. Cbl62 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see little benefit in this. Rules tend to accumulate over time into an ever more opaque system; I think we should only add a new rule if there is a clear benefit, and I don't see that here. No one has actually cited any data (how many people actually submit >4 hooks per day?), but I doubt it's a common occurrence. As Allen3 himself said, those who do produce so many articles can easily game the rule by putting the articles on a user subpage, so what is the benefit? (I don't think I have ever nominated four hooks on a single day, so I'm not personally affected by the rule.) Ucucha 23:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue happens more often than you apparently realize. At this moment the top six nominations at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on August 25 are all from the same author on similar topics while there are five articles from the sam eauthor dealing with illustrators under the entries for August 28. Another block of five was present in the August 21 suggestions from earlier today. Examples of other large blocks that have prompted discussion on this page during the last two months are available at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 57#Spacing similar articles and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 57#Vietnamese DYK overload?. These large blocks cause problems by first increasing the backlog and then creating scheduling headaches due to the need to space hooks on similar topics across multiple updates. This proposal is meant to help the backlog issue by encouraging the proposal of multi-article hooks for large groups of similar articles. When that is not practical, the limit spreads out the similar hooks over time to reduce problems for the volunteers performing the work of scheduling other people's submissions. --Allen3 ^talk 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Wouldn't a simpler way to spread out the hooks over time be just spreading them out over time, without the need for an additional rule? Ucucha 00:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 1-3 a day. Instead of hindering article improvement, it could foster multiple article hooks. We had some good ideas in a previous discussion such as deletion after 5 days past notification and no improvement along with deletion of late noms. I am not sure if they were actually made rules, maybe can create all three.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the issue raised by GeeJo, what about limiting self-noms to 2 a day, but placing no limit on noms of articles by other editors? cmadler (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian beauty queen

Currently lead in Q5 "that Miss Russia 2010 Irina Antonenko (pictured) has no boyfriend?"; to me that is REALLY boring and non-notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It also sounds as an advertisement and I would support demotion of this hook, unless the author comes out with an ALT. Materialscientist (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather grossly inappropriate than boring and non-notable, I would say. I have placed the nomination back on the suggestions page. Ucucha 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

<shrugs>I thought it was very funny myself and while certainly not serious, it was quirky and not offensive. I'd stick with it. I note Gatoclass, DYK's most experienced editor, was prepared to give it a tick. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added some alt hooks. Offliner is currently on vacation and prob won't see this discussion, so I trust that one of the alt hooks will suffice in order to get the article back on the front page for DYK? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What is interesting is in the eye of the beholder and hooks generally shouldn't be pulled for lack of interest unless there is near unanimity on their unsuitability, and here there were a number of reviewers, including myself, who thought the hook was fine. "Beauty queen doesn't have boyfriend" is certainly counterintuitive and therefore meeting the "unusual" critera, so I find it hard to understand the objection to it. Certainly I'm sure it would have got plenty of hits, which is what hooks are designed to do. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said, G. Bencherlite^Talk 13:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree, and personally found the hook amusing. I'm sure it would have gotten a lot of hits where it was. Maybe a good compromise is to save it for April Fools' Day 2011? –Grondemar 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess the hook may have looked worse in the queue than it did at T:TDYK - that happens sometimes. It occurs to me that I was originally going to propose a tweak for it but never got around to it, as follows: " ... that Miss Russia 2010 Irina Antonenko (pictured) says she has no time for a boyfriend?". I think that would probably remove the hint of sexism that I assume has led to the objections. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The last proposal is much better. The original one could be misinterpreted in dozens of ways: she is looking for one and thus posted a message on WP MP? She is not straight? Hasn't got one because of the beauty competitions (life of a beauty competitor is tough .. sigh) etc. Materialscientist (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a better hook. cmadler (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK article not in boldface

In T:DYK/Q4, the last hook should be changed from

{{sclass|John Ericsson|monitor|3|warship}}s ↔ John Ericsson-class monitors

to

[[John Ericsson class monitor|'''''John Ericsson''-class''']] [[monitor (warship)|monitors]] ↔ John Ericsson-class monitors

Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also reworded it to:

... that mattresses lined the inside of the gun turrets of the Swedish John Ericsson-class monitors in order to catch splinters?

because the original wording ("that the inside of the gun turret of the Swedish John Ericsson-class monitors was lined with mattresses to catch splinters?") sounded slightly odd - "was lined" struck me as awkward when there was more than one turret in question (because there was more than one ship), but "were lined" sounded bad too, since "inside... were lined" doesn't agree. Comments / improvements? Bencherlite^Talk 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant to suggest changing a hook that's already passed through the process, but something like the following might make readers more curious, and more likely to click-through.

... that the Swedish John Ericsson-class monitors had mattresses stuffed inside their gun turrets?

Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cantata on Sunday again

Special occasions nom for 5 September: please have a look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting nervous, also going to travel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hook for Azerbaijan National Carpet Museum in Queue 4

When I reviewed this nomination, I expressed my opinion that the alt hook, ... that the Azerbaijan National Carpet Museum (pictured) was first established in a mosque?, was preferable, as it really is unsurprising that the Azerbaijan National Carpet Museum has the largest collection of Azerbaijani carpets in the world. Any other thoughts on this? Mikenorton (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

changed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Double Carnegie hook

Hi, my double hook for Carnegie (ship) and the Carnegie Ridge on August 25, is still unchecked. I'm not complaining, but just want to point out that I will be on a bit of a wikibreak from tomorrow, so I would be grateful if someone could take a look at them, that way, if there are any issues I can respond before I travel, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Now ticked, so I can sign off, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hook on toilet water in Prep area 2

Hi, I was just writing an approval note on ALT4 of this hook when it was taken off the suggestions page and ALT1 was placed here. Both the nominator and I felt that ALT4 was a little bit more hookier:

... that King of France Louis XIV (1638–1715) perfumed his shirts with toilet water?

Would it still be possible to change that? -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO this is decidedly less hooky and interesting because it's missing the "heavenly water" part. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• And whoever put "toilet water" before "heavenly water" made the hook better. I have high hopes for that hook, it is good. --NortyNort (Holla) 10:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Maduru_Oya_National_Park.jpg

I just made this image the lead for what is currently in PrepExtra then noticed it is on Commons but with a copy right tag. Have invited the uploaded, Chanakal, to comment here. So how is this free when it has a copyright tag? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

On seeing this thread I suspected possible flickr washing, but the upload appears to be legitimate. Backtracking to the original Flickr image shows the name in the watermark matches the name on the account and that the image is licensed under CC-BY-SA. While the watermark is annoying it does not conflict with the upload information and everything else I can see checks out. --Allen3 ^talk 15:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

When uploading the photo, watermark is certainly annoyed me. However I proceeded as the information matched and I've seen images by the same author in our articles such as this image. Although the author releases the image under creative commons license, seems to me he fears the users might not attribute him credit properly.--Chanaka L (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Allen3, this appears to be legitimate. Digital watermarking happens; there's even a commons template for this.cmadler (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Albanian Riviera

Template:Did you know/Queue/5 has 2 consecutive Albanian Riviera hooks. I think the usual practice is to at least separate them, or put them in different queue files. Art LaPella (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've separated them. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Taurus-Littrow

The Taurus-Littrow hook in PrepExtra should read: ...that the mountains surrounding the Taurus-Littrow valley, the landing site of Apollo 17 on the Moon, are higher than the Grand Canyon is deep? This was the version that was approved. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese provinces

Extremely disappointing that the 11 article Vietnam province marathon currently on the front page didn't even make it to the lead hook when the current two are barely beond stub class. Dr. Blofeld 08:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment relocated from suggestions page. - Dravecky (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Might just be me, but a lead hook stating that 11 different Vietnamese-named places are provinces of Vietnam isn't a very interesting lead hook. JMO, but I agree with the admin's decision to not use it as lead. Strange Passerby (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a glimmer of appreciation for the extreme hard work that went into the articles is my point. Why do we bother? Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone took the time to review 11 articles in hook and promote them. Also, there have been recent lead hooks on Vietnam. Is there some rule that says "if there are several new articles in a hook it has to be the lead hook"? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Dr. Blofeld, lead hooks are chosen on the basis of interestingness and, particularly, what has a good picture to go along with it. As far as I know, we almost never use maps (neither does TFA). Secondly, coming here to complain about your own hook like this is not very classy...

@ everyone else: I would not worry about this too much. Dr. Blofeld is a hardworking editor but he does have some extreme views when it comes to geographical and city articles, he seems to think those are the only articles that deserve peoples' attention. In fact, he has in the past called me and another editor nationalist Uyghur sympathizers because we didn't spend all of our time working on city articles ([3][4]. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For DYK purposes, I think the articles were represented well. Otherwise, they are good articles and a fine addition to Wikipedia. Not every new article can be or has been made into a DYK. Nothing to be disheartened by, especially if it was just placement.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{Edit protected}}

The Taurus-Littrow hook in Queue 1 should read: ...that the mountains surrounding the Taurus-Littrow valley, the landing site of Apollo 17 on the Moon, are higher than the Grand Canyon is deep? This was the version that was approved. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Kloster Berge school

I am posting this here at User:Cirt's suggestion . . .

Klosterbergen was at AfD, so I completely rewrote it, correcting the errors of fact and expanding it more than fivefold, moved it to the correct title, Kloster Berge school, and since there turned out to be an interesting hook fact, put it up for DYK. However, Cirt relisted the AfD to get more participation, and as I expected, taht means the nomination went stale and got junked [5]. Cirt evidently thought a pending AfD would entail some extra time, and still tells me there should be an exception made in such cases. I clearly should not take a position on whether the article should be kept or not, but it's a radical rewrite, so . . . I'm mentioning it as he suggested. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly recommend allowing this to be considered as a DYK candidate. Exceptions should most definitely be made to articles pending candidacy due to ongoing AFD discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I see it is still at AFD right now. I still think it should be allowed to be a candidate at DYK, but of course that would have to wait until after the ongoing AFD is closed and resolved. At that point in time, it can be considered. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think that should remain a DYK candidate. I've alway thought our practice was that DYK nominations where the article was at AfD were put on hold until the AfD was resolved. This can delay it beyond our normal time-frame, but if it survives the AfD, the DYK should still be permitted. cmadler (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cmadler (talk · contribs), but yea, at the moment, it still is at AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The AfD has now been closed as keep. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is fine to go to DYK it should get a priority as it has been checked for many things already Victuallers (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick reaction needed

Economy of Beijing has just been placed on the main page. It was entirely written by the multiple blocked sockpuppet User:Causeplot767. Withdraw this hook from the MP? Materialscientist (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I say yesVictuallers (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

... that Beijing is home to 26 Fortune Global 500 companies, the third most in the world behind Tokyo and Paris?

Replaced the above hook. If there is a motion, it can be placed in queues later. Materialscientist (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Err. G5ed the article per WP:BAN, specifically "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good" NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Other opinions welcome of course. If consensus is to restore it that's fine, but I'm fairly convinced it's a G5 case. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Two suicides in q5

Queue 5 has two people who killed themselves. At least one too many, imo. Take one of the many opera singers, smile. And please look at the Special occasions Bach cantata, same procedure as every week, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Queue 5 is somewhat badly put together. It also has three articles on churches plus one on a monastary. Is it a Christian anniversary of some sort? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Diluted a bit. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Need some help with bickering at the Joseph Kerman DYK nomination

Could someone please review my Joseph Kerman DYK nomination? It's currently being used by two editors as a secondary front for this rather ill-tempered discussion at Talk:Tosca, not for assessing the nomination itself. There are already 2000+ characters worth of bickering from them and no end in sight. {{{SIGH}}} Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What's Dan up to now? Probably says that Kernan isn't notable. Well, as I was involved in the Tosca discussion, I'm not going to get involved. Geez. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, Rlevse and Rjanag rode to the rescue and mighty fast too. Many thanks! Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Prep 2 nom for USCGC Point Arden (WPB-82309)

USCGC Point Arden (WPB-82309) (created Sept 1) was nominated for DYK and passed and put into Prep 2 with the hook: "... that the USCGC Point Arden, an 82-foot USCG Point class cutter originally designated as WPB-82301, later acquired the name Point Caution when the Coast Guard started naming all cutters longer than 65 feet?"

Now, obviously, the Point Arden couldn't have been named Point Caution, and the designation in the hook also doesn't tally with the article name. This appears to be the result of an error in the article. However, the hook was passed.

I've checked USCGC Point Caution (WPB-82301), also created Sept 1, and it appears to pass DYK criteria. This would appear to be the article that fits the hook nominated. I have therefore put in the right article in the hook. However, the article wasn't formally nominated for DYK, so I'm asking for comments. Strange Passerby (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Seems a common sense fix too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Q4 hook 7 redundancy

• "... that in the series finale to The Bill, called "Respect", all 17 current cast members appeared in the final episode?"

"Series finale" and "final episode" are redundant. Suggest "... that all 17 current cast members made appearances in "Respect", the series finale of The Bill?" Strange Passerby (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Then again, "current" seems wrong now that the show has been cancelled. Strange Passerby (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Corrected, removing "current", but it is still not crystal clear, as it assumes we know that those 17 are cast members of the whole series. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrasing "then-current" would do the trick. - Dravecky (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages

• The fifth hook of Queue 2 links to the dab page Ragusa. I'm too tired to investigate which is the correct disambiguation.
• The eighth hook of Queue 5 links to the disambiguation page Japanese. I would recommend removing the link, or if you must have it, make it [[Japan]]ese.

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've updated the hook in Q5 as you suggested but after several minutes of picking through the various "Ragusa" choices, I'm no closer to being able to pick the right article. It was sloppy for it to be promoted like this but, now that it's done, either the original author needs to be contacted (the link in the article also points to the disambiguation page) or the link (not the hook, just that one link) needs to be pulled for further study. - Dravecky (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• The Ragusa was Dubrovnik, which is the primary meaning of "Ragusa" and also the only city named Ragusa actually to have a seaport. I corrected the hook. Ucucha 12:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

help... wait, perhaps...

• Hey, the "Children of the Stars" hook has a wonderfully excellent and extremely eye catching and super-cute photo (no offense, but much better than the image currently beside that section of the queue)... I am communicating with the director of the film and we are trying to work out problems. His email server bounced his attempt to email OTRS; he is gonna retry using his personal email address etc. All of this is gonna take a while; probably a few days. Can wait without losing spot in queue...? • Ling.Nut

I personally really like the portrait in the queue and would prefer not to replace it. I am happy to move your nom back to the suggestion page to give you time to add a photo nom, but make no gaurantees that it will be selected. Your hook of course will eventually be in the queue either way.4meter4 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You like the guy in the white wig? Really? <blink, blink>. OK. Anyhow. Yes, please move mine back. I am trying to work on image issues. Thanks. • Ling.Nut 12:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done.4meter4 (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! :-) • Ling.Nut 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the bot?

T:DYK has not been updated for over 7 hours now. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh. I just noticed that as well, can it be manually done?...by an admin?--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The WikiStatsBot is down again too, I left a message there. Must be a bot rebellion.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Some 6 hrs ago or so I experienced a temporal problem with the toolserver (geocoordinates). Maybe some bots need resetting after that. I left a message for Shubinator. Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RE Template:Did_you_know/Queue - this bot is constantly going down. Recently it was down for four days. It is run on ThaddeusB's computer. Can this PLEASE get moved to the toolserver, or a new one put on the toolserver so others and kick start it when needed? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Some toolserver maintenance work occurred that resulted in a brief outage sometime between 00:00 and 04:00 today.[6] This is the probable issue with DYKUpdateBot. --Allen3 ^talk 11:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot I'm talking about is still down, now for 1.5 days, and AFAIK is still on ThadB's computer. And the fact that ThadB has only made 3 posts since late May doesn't help. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacement bot BRfA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DYKHousekeepingBot 2. Shubinator (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot is still down and unless Shubinator appears by 18:00 UTC 11 September, an admin has to update manually. Would an admin monitor the situation please (I am not available). Materialscientist (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be there. Ucucha 13:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot back up and running. The bot just stopped logging after about 00:45 UTC...looks like the toolserver was down. The maintenance mentioned above was probably the issue, though I'm not sure how the willow server was affected by it. Shubinator (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

X-Men: First Class (film)

I want reinstatement of the X-Men: First Class (film project) DYK. Although it's probably best to change it to X-Men: First Class (film) because that's it's real name now. This suggestion is per a recommendation in the section Template talk: Did you know#X-Men: First Class (film) which can be deleted if reinstated. Thank you. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Now that I saw that it was on the Template:Did you know/Queue it should be fine for now. I admit I am very new at this. Cheers. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's still a good idea to make sure the name title is changed to X-Men: First Class (film) now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

For reasons of readability and to minimize usage of display space the disambiguation portion of an article name is typically not displayed. In this particular case, adding "(film)" to the article title would also be redundant with the portion of the hook immediately before the article title. You should however note that via use of the Wikipedia:Pipe trick clicking on the bolded link in your hook will take you to the correct article. --Allen3 ^talk 19:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I guess. The main reason why I wanted it changed becuase it's the real name now. Film project is just it's redirection name now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the link is directed there so it's all good. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary 'of'

... that Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow explain in their new book that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" without invoking of God?

I think "of" is not required in "without invoking of God". Also there is a '?' at the end, it should be '.' -Abhishikt 18:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)

Grammer would indicate that it shoud be either "without the invoking of God" OR "without invoking God". As for the question mark, it is how DYKs are set up... as questions.

IE: "Did you know... that Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow explain in their new book that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" without invoking of God?" Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The grammar of the hook is dubious even without this (it sounds like the universe would invoke God)—I think "that without God, 'the universe ...'" will work better. Ucucha 19:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So a possible ALT might be

... that Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow explain in their new book The Grand Design, that without God "the universe can and will create itself from nothing"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I used Schmidt's suggested alt, although I think it could probably use a tweak. I replaced "explain" with "claim" however as this is obviously a contentious claim that has been criticized by numerous parties. Gatoclass (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Now replaced "claim" with "argue" as "claim" is a bit weak in this context. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Prep Extra

Re the hook for Charles "Buffalo" Jones, which was reviewed here, I clicked on the reference and it doesn't even mention this hook fact. Yoninah (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind; I just found the fact in a different reference, and fixed the citation accordingly. Yoninah (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

My hook appears twice

Although I wouldn't mind if it got double exposure, my South Salem Academy is currently in queues 2 and 6; would someone please remove it from one or the other? I'd rather not make such edits with my own work. I noticed a day or two ago that it was still at T:TDYK, even though it had been added to a queue, but again I didn't want to do administrative work with my own hook; apparently someone forgot to remove it, and someone else added it to another queue without realising that it was already up. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaced in Q6. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Requests to add links to Template:DYKbox

Two requests to add links to Template:DYKbox have been made here, but no one has commented yet. That's probably not the best place to make DYK requests, but if someone could have a look at them please. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point, since there is already a prominent link to the same page at the top of the WP:DYKSTATS page. Gatoclass (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Negative BLP hook in Queue 5

... that John Phillips was the first fighter to test positive for banned substances in the Cage Rage promotion?

Does this hook not fail #4 of the WP:WIADYK#Selection criteria? There are no issues with the article, but the hook is the only negative fact in it. Cassandra 73 ^talk 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Returned, replaced. Materialscientist (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Selection criterion 4 states that "hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided", not that they are prohibited entirely. I have looked at the article on Phillips and I think the negative aspect here is suitably referenced and so I have proposed some alternative hooks with reduced focus on the positive test. I invite comment at the nomination on my suggestions. EdChem (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proofreading of articles that will appear on the main page

I noticed Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler in the Did You Know section of the main page today. When I clicked on the link to the article, I found that the name of a different case was given in the lead. As this was the first text that appears in the article and seems like an obvious error, this is the kind of thing I would think should be caught by proofreading the article. This makes me wonder how much proofreading is done on articles nominated for Did You Know, and whether more proofreading should be done. Is there currently any requirement that someone proofread each article before it appears on the main page? If not, would it be feasible to add such a requirement? Calathan (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such requirement, and I am dubious as to feasibility. Obviously the person who checks the hook will correct a glaring error if he is certain it is one, but this is a mass production sort of operation here, perhaps 30 articles a day depending on how many are in the queue. A lot to expect.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of reviews on older noms

This is another constant problem, though more nebulous to fix. Using the currently displayed data from the stats bot, which hasn't updated in over a day (see thread just above), days 4 Sep - 31 Aug are pink or red and only have 29 approved hooks. The red hooks show only 1 approved hook out of 33. This is a constant problem, people focus on reviewing the new hooks, making it hard for people who move them to prep queues to clear the older noms and making it a very long time for people to see their noms reviewed. Can we please get more active participation in reviewing older noms once they go pink or red? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

On nominations which have been reviewed by continue to have or on them without response to solve the issue, perhaps we should institute some sort of time limit for the issues to be resolved before we mark them ? A lot of the older noms are just sitting there stale waiting for responses, and if the nominator/creator doesn't want to reply, it's just going to drag the backlog. On the other hand, this would probably make mandatory the informing of the nominator/creator of any issues with their DYK, something some reviewers still don't do. For older noms without reviews at all, obviously those would be untouched until reviewed. Strange Passerby (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought that 5 days from the time the creator/nominator was notified was sufficient, though when we don't have much of a backlog I might let it go longer. cmadler (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its still important to check the authors active contributions to see if they are currently active before imposing a hard timeline. Yes its good if we are sure they have been notified. But they may have gone on a temprorarily wiki break and are unable to edit for a few days (ie 5 days in no review, need to leave on a vacation no email no access to wiki). In these cases Ive seen other editors realize this and take up the challenge of fixing the dyk for teh absent editor. Maybe We should give additional credit to users who do this good-faith improvement in these rare circumstances (for further encouragement) and still hold the hard time line proposed above? Just some random thoughts Ottawa4ever (talk)

It's certainly technically possible to have the DYK? or DYK?no symbol automatically turn into DYKno after a few days. Whether we want to do it is another question. Ucucha 12:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that it should happen automatically (I don't think it should), but if an editor sees that it's been longer than 5 days, the nominator/creator has been notified, the nominator/creator has been on Wikipedia since the notification, and doesn't seem to be making any progress on fixing the issue(s), it's reasonable at that point to remove the nomination. cmadler (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We appear to have this problem on at least one or two hooks at the moment (at a cursory glance while I was updating prep4). If there's not going to be any improvement made on these, it's time to remove them. Strange Passerby (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Again, a couple of older noms haven't been reviewed at all and are being passed over in favour of newer hooks. Can reviewers please consider looking at the older nominations that haven't been reviewed? Strange Passerby (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take care

Been reviewing some articles largely created with copy-pastas of PD works. In the instance of The Great Comet of 1556 that led to an August 25 DYK that said the following: Astronomers believe that the Great Comet of 1264 and the Great Comet of 1556 were the same comet. Trouble is the only modern source used in the article says its unlikely they were the same comet. A correct DYK in this case would have been "In the 19th century, astronmers disagreed over whether the comets of 1556 and 1264 were one and the same. Modern research idicates they were not."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - another example of the danger of using sources that are PD only because of their age - see current top of the page section. Plus I'm not sure what makes Winston Churchill's mother a RS on medieval astonomy, though it's interesting to see she (or a secretary?) put out an article on it. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Longitudinal Video Recording

Hi. I received credit for this one on my Talk page but I did not work on it. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd. You were listed as a contributor in the DYK set, which is why the bot credited you. I've credited the creator. Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable

I am flabbergasted by the behavior of Paralympiakos during my review of his nominations for Cody McKenzie and Sako Chivitchian. I found the articles to be poorly structured and lacking inline citations, and tried to fix them up before approving them. As you can see from these diffs[7][8], his response was simply to revert all my work, as well as my comments on the T:TDYK page![9] I find this behavior repulsive and can assure you that I won't be reviewing any more of his hooks. Yoninah (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, then just don't interact with him anymore; you don't need to announce it to everyone. I agree that his removal of your talkpage comments is inappropriate, and I have warned him for it; as for the article content issues, that is a content disagreement and no one is automatically "right" or "wrong". From what I can tell of the diffs, your edits did little more than move paragraphs around, although I didn't read them closely; but neither of you are communicating well (edit summaries like "cleanup" and "revert" aren't helpful in content disputes). It's best if you just both stay away from each other. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been warned by MS and myself, see MS's talk page. Yes, he was highly inappropriate and MS reinstated your edit. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no I wasn't. It's frankly poor form by Yoninah. If he/she doesn't like the article, then fine, but don't go criticising like that. Warnings are completely unjustified and I'm tired of the unprofessional behaviour by many of you, Paralympiakos (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was and you're way out of line here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, let's go over this then. I have the nerve to revert Yoninah after he/she introduces errors into the articles. I revert him/her after their poor format, in favour of a more user-friendly format. I have the nerve to complete inline cite requests. I then see Yoninah react badly and leave a rather poor taste comment instead of just blanking the vote. I then remove it, thinking it added nothing to the hook suitability other than highlighting poor form and a vendetta. I'm then met with warnings and disrespect, followed by more accusations. Yeah, I'M out of line. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's perfectly fine to remove a comment on your nomination that you don't like. Ucucha 02:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, let's go over this. A couple meta-points:

• When 4 of the most active members of a project say that you did something incorrect, it's a good idea to stop and think about it.
• Removing comments is rarely acceptable on Wikipedia. That's not just DYK, it's anywhere. The other editors can come to their own conclusions about the comment. If it's truly as offensive as you think it is, someone else will take care of it.

Shubinator (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of reviewers here. If one reviewer leaves comments that are out of line, the others will call him out on it. It's not your job to judge what's out of line and stop him—since you're the nominator and therefore in a conflict of interest, you are not in any position to do that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree, it is unacceptable to remove another user's comments. This isn't your own talk page. Content dispute aside (no opinion), there is no case to be made here that you did the right thing to remove the comments - you did not. Strange Passerby (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Everyone, please stop piling on to Paralympiakos. His last week or two at DYK hasn't been the easiest, so let's give him some space to chill out without more criticism. Yes, he shouldn't have removed the comments, but his actions aren't the only ones that were less than ideal. EdChem (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I said as much in my first post here. I imagine we can all move along now, nothing to see here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time we've had users removing comments they don't like from their noms. We may have to add a clause to the additional rules stating that this is not appropriate. It's fine to respond to a comment you disagree with but removing comments is obviously problematic. Gatoclass (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is already reflected in WP:TPO as a basic policy, thus IMO, there is no need articulate it specifically at DYK (unless we want to simplify WP:TPO for DYK case). Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Adverts

I just noticed because of anon. comment that we are featuring the hook

... that The Vinyl Conflict is an upcoming box set by the thrash metal band Slayer that will include ten of their albums?
On the main page. It only has some 90 minutes to go, but I would agree it is overly promotional and remove it. Comments? Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Courcelles 04:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed. See also the original thread. Materialscientist (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. On top of that, it didn't meet the length requirements; the third paragraph is basically a big quote, and without that it's only around 1200 characters. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

PrepExtra

PrepExtra should be simply moved to be located at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. It is used practically every day, and is full in most cases that I have checked. It is used just like the other preps 1 and 2. Moving it would make things quite a bit simpler. If needed, we can later add Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK with me. I've been thinking this too. Never saw the reason for it being different. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see PrepExtra go away. If you check the history of its creation, it was originally crated as a temporary holding area to allow hooks to be moved off of the suggestions page. This is despite a a discussion from 2 weeks earlier that had largely rejected the idea. The real question is: do we gain anything useful from having hooks sit in a prep area instead of on the suggestions page? I personally do not see what the gain is other than moving hooks to a location where the stats bot no longer sees them pending their move to the Main page. --Allen3 ^talk 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cirt. I personally like having three prep areas. It's useful having that many because it gives non-admins (who can't edit the queues) greater opportunity to help clear the backload. It also cuts down on the size of the page at Template talk:Did you know which is useful to editors with slower processing speeds in loading that page. As far as I can see, there's no downside to it and only positive gains. I wouldn't be opposed to a fourth prep area being created.4meter4 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, now at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. Anybody feel free to create Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4, if/when needed. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It would also give more time to scrutinize the hooks as people review them more intensely there, finding lots of errors. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, created Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

They also need to added to the menu at T:DYK/Q and PE removed. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if there is going to be a bunch of preps, I suggest a bot is set up to keep tabs on the next bot to be moved to the queue, in order to avoid the constant prep swapping that seems to be going on these days. Gatoclass (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a fan of multiple preps as well. Aside from the reasons above, sometimes 3 or more queues are empty and it is good to have that prep immediately there. I usually don't load prep extra though unless a new Queue is within an hour or so of being updated. Just in case another hook has to be moved to it.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Support addition of new prep areas. Grateful to have the chance as a non-admin to be able to contribute to the Main Page by assembling DYK sets. Also agree with Gatoclass (talk · contribs) regarding prep swapping, I don't see a need. Finally, could an admin update {{DYKqueuenav}} to include P3 and P4? Strange Passerby (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 11:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• What about just always moving prep1 to the next queue and a bot move prep 2 to 1, 3 to 2, and 4 to 3? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds a bit complex to me. IMO all we really need is a counter informing the updater of the next prep area to be promoted, just like we have for the queues. Gatoclass (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't need a bot for a counter. The admin that moves a set to the queue can also manually increment the prep count. The preps could be transcluded so that the next prep is highest, second next below that, and so on. Shubinator (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess so. It would just be a matter of educating everyone to do that then. It would certainly be a lot easier than all the swapping that's been going on - especially now that there are 4 prep pages. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a manual counter to the master queue page, here. Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are certain DYKs not allowed?

Are there certain DYKs that are disallowed for some reason or other? I mean, ones that satisfy all the criteria and normal policies. "Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." Does this go over and beyond what is required at BLP? That is, an article satisfies BLP, but not this? Does living individuals apply only to specific people or general groups too? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The BLP standard article standard in general are a higher for DYK. So you it is possible to have a BLP with negative piece of info that has a reliable source and meet article standard but since a DYK would appear on the main page, it would probably not get picked up for DYK. But you could use a non negative bit of info from the article for DYK. Also as an example, while bare URLs won't get an article deleted, it would hold up a DYK nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. But does it only apply to specific individuals, like in BLP? Or does it go beyond BLP into more general groups of people? Christopher Connor (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And there also appears to be a tendency to avoid more controversial topics, if I'm correct. Maybe we should update the rules to reflect this? Christopher Connor (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, it says "articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided".

You can have an article with negative material on DYK but obviously it must comply strictly with WP:BLP. Hooks should not focus unduly on negative material, but sometimes a negative hook can be appropriate, for example for someone who is only known for committing a crime. It's really just a matter of exercising a little common sense. Gatoclass (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you snoop around the archives you can find lots of examples of articles that have been objected to on various grounds. Off the top of my head, I remember that Cunt (video game) didn't get promoted, and several articles about porn stars were disputed a lot. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Prep counter added to Master Queue page

I added a manual prep counter to the master queue page, here. Would updaters please be sure to update this counter when they move Prep areas to the Queue, which will eliminate the need for swapping Prep areas. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I used some magic to make it automatically display the first prep area that is empty (or more precisely, that has page size < 8001; an empty prep area is 7455 b and a filled one is >9000), so there is no need to update it by hand. Ucucha 14:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this correct? If all 4 Prep areas are full, the next Prep area to be moved will display as 1. Then an admin copies Prep 1 to a queue and empties Prep 1. The next Prep area to be moved will now display as 2. Next someone fills Prep 1 from T:TDYK, and the next Prep area to be moved will display as 1 again, instead of 2. The lower higher numbered Prep areas may never be promoted to queues. Please correct me if I've got this wrong? —Bruce1ee^talk 14:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I'm afraid. I'll try to think of a way to automatize it anyway, but it's probably not possible. Ucucha 14:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Voice sample template in Prep 4

This template is much larger than our usual 100x100 images, and I have a feeling it's not going to look right on the mainpage. Is there any way it can be reduced in size? Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I replaced {{listen}} with {{DYK listen}}, which is much smaller. I trimmed the title a little as well. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Prep 2 and Proposed Michigan basketball multi

I am concerned that the glut of Michigan basketball hooks will result in a backlash. There have been about 30 (?) noms for the individual teams from the 1950s to 1990s over the past couple weeks, in large part due to the WikiCup competition. To deal with the situation, my suggestion is to group these hooks into multis so that Tony gets his DYK credits, but the MainPage is not inundated. An 8-item "multi" that could be used for several is set forth below. When I offered up hooks on Michigan quarterbacks, I used similar "multi" groupings. Though not ideal, it's better IMO than the backlash against 30+ UM BB hooks inundating the Main Page. Proposed multi follows:

• ... that the Michigan Wolverines men's basketball teams coached by Bill Frieder won five consecutive NCAA tournament berths and include the 1980-81, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, and 1987-88 teams, and 1988-89 national championship team?

One of these hooks has already found its way into Prep 2. So if folks agree with the proposed multi, then the 1983-84 hook needs to be pulled from Prep 2. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Five consecutive NCAA tournament appearances is not particularly remarkable for a program in a major conference. But maybe it should be allowed anyway in the interest of not overwhelming the Main Page with separate hooks. cmadler (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Considering Michigan's rather lackluster record in the past decade of making the NCAA tournament due to their sanctions, I actually find that hook incredibly interesting and I fully support merging them as to not overwhelm the main page. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support a merge. Currently there are 6 Wolverine hooks in the queues and prep areas. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Strong support. This is constipating DYK and they're now one hook from the bottom. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Support multi-hook. It's interesting and helps with the backload.4meter4 (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus for the first multi. Here's another possibility to group the Johnny Orr era hooks together. Some of these are already in queue (the one in queue 3 will go live in about an hour), so if there's a consensus for multi #2, someone will need to pull them from the queue:

• ... that the Michigan Wolverines men's basketball teams coached by Johnny Orr featured Rudy Tomjanovich, Campy Russell, Rickey Green and Phil Hubbard and included the 1968-69, 1969–70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1973-74, 1976-77, and 1979-80 teams, and the NCAA Tournament runner-up 1975-76 team? Cbl62 (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

using the first set and swapped out the one in prep 2 for now. If the other set can be used too in a later set, that's great. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the second multi is approved, it will require pulling items from Queue 1 (1975-76), Queue 2 (1973-74), Queue 3 (1971-72), and Prep 3 (1976-77). The one in Queue 3 is time senstive as it goes live in about 30 minutes. Cbl62 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Working on this. Allow me time, will hit the time sensitive ones first. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

New Queue and Prep building tip

Note the neat script Ucucha wrote at Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Prep_areas, it tells us which prep set is next to move to the queues. This also tells us which one should be filled next when empty. For example, a bit ago 1 and 4 were empty and 2 is up to move to queues next. So the next prep set build should go into 4, but someone started filling in prep 1. So, I'm wondering, given the current status, ie 2 is due next (being the oldest prep set) and the script says it's next and 1 and 4 are empty, then people fill in 1 and 4, will the script change to say 1 is due next? It looks like it might as it's based on page size. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem, Prep 1 is right now partly filled and it says prep 1 is due next, but really prep 2 should be next. Can someone fix this? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the template code. I don't think it'll work as expected. For example, right now it says "There are no filled Prep areas." which is true. So we're back to square one: the promoting admin doesn't know which prep area was filled first. This isn't easy to automatically detect and the counter would need to be incremented manually. Shubinator (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

3 and 4 are filled, but you're right, this may be hard to do with script. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See also a few sections up. I'm sorry for not recognizing that my code wouldn't work. Ucucha 00:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Happens to everyone :) We could instead have a separate prep counter page (like the current queue system) so it's easier to update. And we could make the preps transclude in the correct order. So if Prep 3 is up next, they'd be lined up 3-4-1-2. Shubinator (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Short TFA

today, I have just added 2 hooks to the main page and believe 1-2 hooks can be added to today's queues (depending on length, single/multi). Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantata again

Please check the nom for Special occasions Sep 19 as I am on travel and will not be able to respond to questions later. Concerning the prepareas: would a timestamp help finding out which one was filled first, or is that too simple? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of requests

I originally posted this request at Rlevse's talk page, but have been advised by EdChem to move it here. In queue 1 and 2, there are a couple of hooks I'd like to alter if possible. These are the Aaron Wilkinson and Alex Caceres hooks. I'd like to add "The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck competitor" before each of their names, so that the hook seems more appealing to viewers of that TV show. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They already look interesting enough to me, and adding more information (especially such a long name) both makes them take up more space and generally makes them less interesting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well as an alternative to the space-taker, would "TUF 12 competitor" be acceptable, or still dull? It's just that the debut episode took place a couple of nights ago, but a few competitors were only mentioned fleetingly. Wilkinson especially, was one of these. I just think that the TV show info would help people to know who they are. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to someone else to decide, as it is mainly a stylistic and subjective matter. Personally, I generally feel that adding extra facts into the hook distracts from the interesting one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

he did ask me and these changes simply don't read smooth to me. Just meine zwei pfenning. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll put this from the other end, Para. As it stands, the hook for Wilkinson is pretty interesting and might compel me to have a look at his article. But, seeing as I've no interest in MMA, adding TUF 12 (or the other long name) into the hook would more likely result in me looking at the article for the competition/TV show, deciding I'm not interested, then not looking at the main article. If you get where I'm coming from, this is probably one of those "leave it as it is" things. Strange Passerby (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. I was thinking that the MMA fans looking at it (after reading that the individual was a part of TUF 12), would outweigh those with no interest in the sport in the current hook status. However, I'm fine with leaving it as it is. Shows over folks ;) Paralympiakos (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Is there an archive for Template talk:Did you know? I'm trying to find out who nominated Parodia tenuicylindrica so I can thank them. What's with the 5-day rule? I just started a bunch of stubs that I might like to nominate at some point, but researching them, for example, new articles about people, could take some time. Also, could you guys streamline the rules and procedures more? They're spread out all over the place, across pages and it really seems like a lot just for a couple of lines of trivia, or is there a reason for this? --I'ḏ♥One 22:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, no archive. J Milburn nominated the article, see here.
• DYK is about new content, hence 5 days. If you need time to work on an article, keep it in a userspace sandbox until it's ready.
• Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage. There's most definitely a reason; each rule was made to address something that persistently came up. Most of them are common-sense rules, but they were debated by some, so they were made explicit.

Shubinator (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that stubs will qualify for DYK at a later date if they have been expanded 5x in readable prose and have over 1,500 characters at the end of expansion. You can nominate those within five days of the beginning of the expansion. And yes, as the person who reviewed and passed the nom for said article, it was J Milburn. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK images

DYKUpdateBot has been accurate in figuring out which DYK images are protected and which aren't, so this weekend I'm planning to tweak the bot so it won't update if it sees an unprotected file (before it would notice, but wouldn't stop). Any objections? Shubinator (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to have the bot protect it itself? No objection to the proposed change. Ucucha 02:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about that, but kept hitting a snag: what if a vandal is smart enough to vandalize the image after it's in the queue and before the bot c-uploads/protects it? The bot is very predictable, so a vandal can easily outsmart it. Shubinator (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can check whether the image has been recently overwritten? Ucucha 03:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

How recent is recent? Theoretically a vandal could modify the image 10 minutes after it's popped into the queue. (I know I'm being paranoid, but I'm making sure there aren't any kinks in the system.) Shubinator (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

From, say, ten minutes before an admin moved the image into the queue? (This would prevent even a supersmart vandal who vandalizes the image just as the admin is putting together the queue.) Ucucha 03:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. That would work. It's also a fair bit of coding for something that's unlikely to happen (especially since the bot can't protect at Commons and has to c-upload instead). I'll see if I have enough free time to pull it off, but that might take a while. Shubinator (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, time delay is an option to program in free time. The pros of protecting grossly overweigh the cons of having an unprotected image on MP. Main page matters are usually handled by admins anyway (who will fix the vandalism, i.e. bot is not guilty for protecting). There might legitimate changes to the image at any moment, but again, they need to be checked by a (DYK) admin, if occur after promotion. The only crucial thing is to post a log saying that ".. bot has protected this and that image. The image was promoted to the queues xxx hours ago, it was last changed yyy hours ago". Materialscientist (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll shoot for a combination of the two: 1) If the image upload log is clean from X minutes before the image was added to the queue, protect and log; 2) Else delay the update. Figuring out how to upload the image will take the most time; from there it's not too hard to check through the queue's history (especially since DYKHousekeepingBot did something very similar). Shubinator (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Implemented original idea; the bot won't update if it sees an unprotected file. I looked into uploading images, and it's tougher than I thought it would be. (I'll still keep it in mind, but it won't happen any time soon.) Shubinator (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So we still need to protect the file? But the bot won't update the main page at all if it's unprotected or just not update the image? Does the bot detect if the protection was done on commons? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, the file still needs to be manually protected, and the bot won't update DYK at all if there's an unprotected file. The bot detects manual and cascading protection both here at Enwiki and at Commons. How it works: About two hours before the update, the bot checks if the next queue or T:DYK have formatting issues, or if the upcoming file isn't protected. If the bot sees a problem, it'll post to User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors. If the problem isn't fixed by update time, the bot will wait and the update will be delayed. Shubinator (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Another neato by Shub! — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews on older noms, lack of, take II

Just eyeballing it here as the bot hasn't updated the counter on T:DYK/Q, but we're having a serious issue with older noms not being reviewed at all — and these are noms more than/nearly a week old. I'm not talking about reviewed noms with issues, but there's a number of them that simply haven't been looked at. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nominations at least 7 days old, as of 01:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Date	Hooks	Reviewed (issues)	Reviewed (pass)	Not reviewed
September 7	2	2	0	0
September 8	8	3	0	5 (62.5%)
September 9	12	1	4	7 (58.3%)
September 10	22	1	4	17 (77.3%)
September 11	37	2	13	22 (59.5%)

Yep, brought it up a few days ago, see #Lack of reviews on older noms, currently 5th thread on this page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at one of 7 September cases (Sako Chivitchian) and the nominator has also commented, it just needs someone to make a final decision. :) EdChem (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The other hook from the 7th too. That was was dealt with a couple of days ago, as far as I can see. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I usually go straight to the older ones. I think they get over looked because of obvious issues. I just finished up some articles and will work on a few.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Li Shouli

I could use an assist (especially with someone knowledgeable about Chinese history or language) with this entry. I am skeptical about the bona fides of the sources, and the nominator's talk page suggests a history of problems with copyright violation. Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be unwilling to give it any credit at the moment. The way the article's references are presented does not make it conducive to review the nomination. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 07:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sako Chivitchian DYK

I suggested an alternative hook for this nomination, which was rejected over referencing concerns. I have now spent considerable time improving the referencing in the article, and now have references for his Judo accomplishments directly from the United States Judo Federation website, and from an MMA site that isn't self-published by the fighter. So, I would like to propose that the present hook:

• ... that Sako Chivitchian, a competitor on the twelfth season of The Ultimate Fighter, made his mixed martial arts debut at age 15, winning via armbar?

be changed to something like:

• (ALT1) ... that Sako Chivitchian, holds 11 U.S. national judo titles and won his debut mixed martial arts fight in 98 seconds at age 15?

or

• (ALT2) ... that Sako Chivitchian was the USJF's 2002 National Youth Male Athlete of the Year and won his debut mixed martial arts fight in 98 seconds at age 15?

I just think that his judo titles or national athlete of the year award are much more interesting than his competing in season 12 of The Ultimate Fighter. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is to be changed, then my preference would be ALT 1. Thank you for your work EdChem, that was excellent stuff, especially considering your lack of interest in the topic. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is now in Queue 1. Any views on whether my suggestion is worth considering? EdChem (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alt 1 verified and swapped into queue 1. Shubinator (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) EdChem (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Prep 2

Prep 2 currently has 2 churches, back to back. Yoninah (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Once an admin fills Q6, one church hook can be dropped down to the now cleared prep. Nice catch.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Just move them within P2 so they aren't back to back. That's all that's needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous hook in Queue 4

The hook in Queue 4 (that the first College Baseball All-America Team was selected by Walter Camp in the early days of American football in 1889?) is factually inaccurate on at least three important counts. First, no college baseball All-America teams were selected until either 1947 or 1950 (according to the body of the referenced article) and certainly not as early as 1889, as suggested by the hook. Second, Walter Camp did not select college baseball All-America teams; he only selected football teams. Third, and as stated in the body of one of the linked articles (1889 College Football All-America Team), Camp was not even the first to select an All-America football team; Casper Whitney (not Camp) was the one who began selecting the All-American football teams in 1889. I'm not sure how this got approved given these errors, but it should be pulled from the queue until an accurate hook can be approved. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now discovered a fourth problem with the hook. The off-line source that was relied upon in good faith in approving the hook is also problematic. The cited source is "The Michigan alumnus, University of Michigan Library. 2010. p. 495." The actual publication, "Michigan Alumnus," is a quarterly publication of the University of Michigan Alumni Association. I am a member of the alumni association and have on-line access to the publication. The article does not identify the particular issue of the publication (or the title of the article), but there simply is no "p. 495" in any 2010 issue of the publication. For example, the latest issue (Early Fall 2010) only goes up to p. 64. Similarly, the Spring 2010 issue only goes up to p. 64. Accordingly, the sourcing issue also needs to be resolved. Cbl62 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've notified User:TonyTheTiger on his talk page here about these objections-- I figure if he wrote the article, he should be able to clear up any inaccuracies or inconsistencies. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The hook needs to be removed from Q4. The piping in the article is for the first college football, not baseball team. So Camp definitely didn't select the first baseball team. I overlooked that when I tick'd the ALT. --NortyNort (Holla) 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaced. Materialscientist (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What was the hook? Is the article back at T:TDYK?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

See 9 september section at T:TDYK Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And this diff. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Queue 6 photo

Te Rewa Rewa Bridge is the lead article in queue 6. I've found a much better quality photo (adjacent) on flickr with appropriate licensing and have placed it in the article. Any chance of using this photo with the hook? Schwede66 19:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 20:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Prep links in DYKbox

Just out of curiosity, does anyone ever actually use the links P1, P2, P3 and P4 in the DYKbox? I've never done so myself, and I don't see why anyone would want to, so are they really necessary? Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I use them when checking or filling prep areas. I know they can be accessed from T:DYK/Q, but it's one less click. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not just use the queue master page? You can see all four of them there. Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know, but to check the credits I have to open each prep area. The links are not essential, but they're a nice-to-have. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed re articles hived off from existing ones

Could someone with experience take a look at the DYK nomination for Architecture of Albany, New York? Technically it doesn't seem to qualify as either a new article or a 5x expanded one, but I'm not sure. I'm in some sympathy with the disappointment felt by the article's creator. Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Other articles have been consistantly declined in similar situations. For the sake of fairness the nom should be rejected.4meter4 (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, sorry, IAR not applicable here. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Q5 hook on The Causeway

The Q5 hook on The Causeway is... not realy a hook. It's obvious from the name that the estate is not named for an occupant, so the hook is rather self-defeating. I believe an alt was suggested in the nom, could we use that instead? --Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The opposite view was also mentioned IIRC, so there's a split view on this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Q5 hook on E. G. Swain

As the article's creator I helped reword the hook slightly on the nominations page, and also made a change to the article itself, in response to some concerns raised by others. The version now in the queue is the original uncorrected wording; if you check the discussion, you'll see a proposed replacement hook in which the last word changes from "Rector" to "Vicar", which is more accurate. Karenjc 18:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed Rector to Vicar. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Expansion vs GA

First of all I completely understand the rules of DYK but my two recent nominations for Louboutins and When Love Takes Over as they were not expanded enough. Allow me to individually explain why both DYKs should have been accepted IMO:

Louboutins

• Background: Article is about the 2009 song "Louboutins" by Jennifer Lopez
• Though I accept that the article was only expanded around 1.5×, since the time of the nomination it has become a WP:Good Article.
• The DYK hook was interesting and funny, "Did you know that that in the song "Louboutins", Jennifer Lopez sings the name of the designer footwear brand a total of thirty-two times?"
• The article and subject are topical because the song was responsible for Lopez's leave from Epic Records and she has recently been getting her career back on track and has joined a new record label as well as the impending announcement of her joining 'American Idol'.
• Lopez is a topical person in the media and so the DYK should have been considered as her appeal is widespread.

When Love Takes Over

• Background: Article is about the 2009 song "When Love Takes Over" by David Guetta & Kelly Rowland
• I began work on the article in August 2010 when it was just 29kb and have since taken the article to 56kb and made it a WP:Good Article.
• The DYK is topical (see below), "Did You know that David Guetta and Kelly Rowland's (both pictured) 2009 single, "When Love Takes Over", had to be released early in the United Kingdom because two inferior bootleg versions were released to the iTunes store?."
• The article is topical because Kelly Rowland (who's been in the media quite a lot) is launching her third album in 2011, of the success of this single. Guetta told Billboard that the song had inspired him. The hook itself is also topic as it speaks of the impact that an industry related topic has on popular culture.

Overall though I understand the reasonings and rulings behind DYK I still maintain that both of these candidates had good mandates for making DYK. Both are interesting, wide-appealing subjects in popular culture and the tragic thing is that if they are denied they will probably never get chance to be DYKs. Although its accepted that articles should have been 5× expanded there is an inherent implication that size is more important that quality at DYK... if that's the case it would be a sad and sorry state of affairs especially since both articles have had lots of information added in the recent few weeks and have changed (perhaps beyond recognition). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is simple - we've got to stick to the rules. There was a motion to change the rules to include GAs which were not expanded recently, but it didn't find enough support as I recall. Materialscientist (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, no IAR here. Other GAs have been turned down befoe too for not being fivefold expanded. DYK is not necessarily about the quality of articles per se, it's about promoting newly-written articles to be seen by others who could pitch in to help edit/expand it further, at least imo. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 23:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, GA not = DYK. DYK is for featuring new and greatly expanded articles. In addition, we have too much of a backlog as is without adding GA and FA to the mix. Note, I removed these from the DYK noms page before I saw this thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with comments by Materialscientist (talk · contribs), Strange Passerby (talk · contribs), and Rlevse (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I think I get the point. I think presumed that DYK was for promoting any qualifying interesting subject and not necessarily some thing new/recent etc. It's my niavity for thinking things which are topical in the media are automatically appropriate for DYK -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Who decides what's "topical"? Your being interested in something doesn't automatically make it "topical", and a 2009 song certainly isn't "current" (it's 2010 now). Anyway, as several users above have already said, DYK is about promoting new content, not "topical" existing content; in the future you should perhaps read the basic DYK rules before claiming you "completely understand" them... rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect that x years in the future, the project will want to showcase its newest GAs instead of new/expanded articles. But it hasn't happened yet, and will probably be a long time coming. Cheers. Haus^Talk 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In the end, i'd take a GA over a DYK. More work involved. Futher, push the article up to FA status and try to get it as a TFA. --NortyNort (Holla) 02:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of public domain information in DYK articles

Following on from this discussion a couple of weeks ago, I'd like to clarify the situation on whether or not we should promote articles for inclusion in DYK if they are largely a copy + paste of a public domain source? Currently John Greenhill is on T:TDYK (here) and the editor has admitted that it is mainly copied from the Dictionary of National Biography. Considering that a few weeks ago an article which had many other sources, but was mainly built around a PD source, was declined, should we do the same for this nomination? If so, should we add a note to the rules to let editors know that articles using PD text are not eligible? Smartse (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't promote such articles. This has been discussed several times over the past year or two, I'll see what I can find in the archives. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in case a ref is not found. My understanding is - An article cannot be cut and pasted from a PD source, but of course a subject that is in a PD source is not banned from DYK. PD sources can be used ..... but you cannot cut and paste. Articles need to be original Victuallers (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A sampling of past discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 53#Articles copy/pasted from PD sources
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 55#Sea Serpent (clipper)
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 32#Removal of Early history of Turkmenistan from DYK template
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 48#Citizendium ports

Some of these are more about specific cases and some are more conceptual. I haven't taken the time to read through all of them and gauge consensus, but my recollection is that there is usually a consensus (perhaps only a slight one) against using PD copy-paste articles. I should note, though, that I am a pretty vocal anti-copy-paste person, so my judgment of the consensus might be biased. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If 1500 characters readable prose of the said article were original, I don't see why it shouldn't be elidible. But then again, its whole text would have to come under close scrutiny for paraphrasing as well. I am also not a fan of copying and pasting.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that these often fairly large copied-and-pasted articles from EB, Catholic Encyclopaedia, DNB etc. discourage new and original writing (not original research, there is a difference). Many stay more or less the same for years, and Wikipedia editors appear to feel bound by a disposition and content determined by a 19th-century view of a topic rather than recent research. If the purpose of DYK is to encourage new writing representing a current view of a topic, as I believe it should be, these copied PD texts should be disallowed from DYK and if a new replacement article eventually gets written, it should be regarded as completely new, even if it isn't five times larger than the content it replaces.

Another point: DYK credits are clearly valued by many users, and it is hardly fair to those users who actually make an effort researching and writing articles, if some users get DYK credits for just copying something without even trying to rewrite it in their own words. (Disclaimer: I have written articles based at least in part on articles in the more recent ODNB. I try to rewrite in my own words and summarize sources rather than make uncomfortably close paraphrases, even if means that the article ends up shorter than it could otherwise have been.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are articles almost entirely composed of PD text which have made it to FA. If they are good enough for FA, I don't see why they shouldn't be good enough for DYK. As long as the text is fully wikified, modified where appropriate, properly referenced etc. I don't see a problem. We do of course give preference to original articles so when there is a large backlog it is not unreasonable to reject articles which consist wholly of cut-and-pasted PD text. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If they are good enough for FA, I don't see why they shouldn't be good enough for DYK. I absolutely disagree. FA and DYK evaluate completely different things. There are lots of articles that qualify for FA but not for DYK. cmadler (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, the idea is to encourage the creation of new articles that are actually new. Cutting and pasting a hunk of public domain text (which, I confess, I have done with proper notification for a few NASA administrator articles--none submitted to DYK) is little better than splitting content from an existing Wikipedia article to create a "new" article. In either case, while a red link may have been turned blue no genuinely new content has been created. - Dravecky (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What is "genuinely new"? Every article is just a new presentation of content already existing somewhere else in reliable sources. DYK exists to encourage content that is new to Wikipedia, I see no reason to discourage users who might want to create a new article from perfectly good PD text - and I might add I think it a bad idea to insist text is rewritten as it basically only increases the probability of introducing errors into the finished product. Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that in many areas the PD sources used are PD because of age, and not "perfectly good" at all. The old Dictionary of National Biography published between 1885-1900, which was the source used in the article mentioned at the start here (John Greenhill), is full of olde worlde language, and seriously outdated information. I'm reluctant to say it is not an RS at all, but it should not be the main source for any article, and DYK should not accept such articles. It is especially unreliable on early English artists, as English art history was in the Stone Age at the time. In the case of Greenhill, the lead consists, in its entirety of "John Greenhill (c. 1644 – 19 May 1676) was an English portrait painter, a pupil of Peter Lely, who approached his teacher in artistic excellence, but whose life was cut short by a dissolute lifestyle." and there is much more the same:"Among Greenhill's personal admirers was dramatist Aphra Behn, who kept up an amorous correspondence with him, and lamented his early death in a fulsome panegyric". There are plenty of better sources available online, and we shouldn't put these on the main page. I would add that articles almost entirely from PD sources have a very tough time passing FAC these days; those times are pretty much over. Johnbod (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with John. If you look lower down on this page to the section "Please take care" i've outlined a recent DYK that was the result of a copy-pasta from a PD work that was factually incorrect. Why? It stated that a dispute between scientists in the 19th century was "current" when it was in fact settled about 70 years ago. Any article that is largely or wholly a cut and paste from a 19th century work with no effort made to determine what recent scholarship has had to say about a matter should not be accepted. Period. (And yes, the overwrought language is also a problem.)Bali ultimate (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The same problem would arise if the article had merely been paraphrased instead of pasted. Outdated sources are obviously not just a problem for PD-based articles.

In regards to "overwrought" text, that is an NPOV issue that can be dealt with separately. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Duel at Lake Merced

off-topic discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting topic. A few days ago I wrote an article Duel at Lake Merced. I used 3 public domain sources from which I copied and pasted the text into the article, and I believe at least 3 other sources to include more info to the article. Then I went to the place of the duel, and took the image. I spent 40 minutes working with it in photo shop specially for this article. I did include all public domain books and other sources I used in the reference section.At the article's talk page I specified that I copied and pasted the public domain text. I've done lot's of research, found information from 6 different sources, and ... was severely attacked at the article's talk page. It was an interesting article, illustrated with 2 public domain images (both uploaded by me) yet I asked this article to be deleted because of that unwarranted attack at the talk page. Did I do something wrong, when I copied and pasted the text from PD sources into the article, and if I did not, could this article be DYK, if it is restored? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Unwinding the proper attribution of the quoted/paraphrased text plus the severe copyedit required to address grammar and plagiarism concerns would keep a merely restored article from the front page. Perhaps if you were to rewrite the article in your own words, properly attributing sources of facts and quoted text, and create this as a new article in the future it would be addressed at that time. Also, I'm concerned by the obvious but unlabelled photo-manipulation of your photograph of the obelisks. That artwork isn't actually present at the site, is it? - Dravecky (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I uploaded it to wikipedia File:The place of the duel between Broderick and Terry .jpg. I used my own image, and another PD image File:Duel between Broderick and Terry.jpg as it specified in the image description "I (Mbz1 (talk)) created this work entirely by myself using my own image and public domain image File:Duel between Broderick and Terry.jpg" So I am not sure why do you call it "unlabelled" but you may delete it of course. There's no need for the image with no article.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I would ask that if the article is restored more or less in the condition it was in when it was deleted that the talk page be restored as well. I think Dravecky has well captured the concerns with the deleted text here, which has since been restored to the original editor's userspace.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Unless the article meets CSD, it should be restored. Editors can't revoke their contributions just because they're upset. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The deletion was requested in a fit of pique. But it was still the right course of action. There was extensive plagiarism, but with subtle changes in wording and the blending together of different info from old sources that would make it very, very difficult to untangle.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) A few day ago User:Bali ultimate did not like one, two comments I made on AN/I, so he wikihounded me to the article I wrote, and wrote a rude, and very unhelpful rant at the article's talk page. That rant did upset me, but it probably should have not because as my favorite philosopher Eric Hoffer said: “Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength”. He blamed me in Plagiarism, but it was a lie because at the article's talk page I clearly specified that I copied and pasted the text from the source book into the article, and I did it before User:Bali ultimate ever showed up there. Now User:Bali ultimate wikihounded me here. The bottom line is that I, and as it is seen from this thread, not only I, did not know what is ok and not ok in treating public domain texts. I saw my images that were released in PD being used all over the net without any attributions to me, and I thought it is what PD license is about. I of course attributed all the sources I used in the references. I will re-write the article according to the advises I got from user:Dravecky and user:Rlevse.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) No you didn't. The deleted talk page spoke for itself. You mixed and matched, fiddled badly with tenses and articles, and it was a largely plagiarized piece. I'll be keeping on eye on the plagiarism issue if and when you put the new story up.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, I did, and yes the talk page speaks for itself, and also for your rudeness. Just stop wikihounding me. Mind your own business, and better keep an eye on your own civility problem. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC) That's enough, guys. This discussion has nothing to do about DYK anymore, so why don't you take it to one of your userspaces (or, better yet, just let it go entirely). rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Q3 tweak

Just a quick tweak needed on Queue 3 ... the parameter right| needs to be removed from the image to make the text wrap round it correctly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks

Hello all. At some point recently, my Pat Audinwood hook moved onto the queues and is currently in queue 6, which takes place at 7AM London time. This was a timed hook and not quite what I requested. Could we please move this to coincide with September 26 1AM London time please? Thanks very much. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just what was the request and the basis for it? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the hook's content, it has to do with the timing of the fight. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved it out of the queue and to the top of the Prep areas so it shouldn't be missed. Gatoclass (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup discussion moved

I have moved WikiCup discussion to WT:DYK/WC for easier following. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Michigan basketball overload, part 2

There has been considerable consternation expressed on the suggestions page about TonyTheTiger's nominations of 30+ Michigan basketball team articles (mostly short summaries barely meeting the 1500 byte requirement). Last week, I expressed concern about precisely this sort of backlash from people who are, understandably, irritated with the flood of similar noms. I came up with 2 multis last week to try to ease the problem, and I've come up with 3 more. Tony has already proposed a hook for the "Amaker" years, and the same could be done with the other two coaches. These not terrific hooks, but they have the virtue of compressing 15 17 (missed 2) noms into 3 hooks:

• Hook 1...that Michigan Wolverines men's basketball teams coached by Steve Fisher (pictured) featured Fab Five stars Juwan Howard, Jalen Rose and Chris Webber, and include the 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996-97 teams?
• Hook 2... that Michigan Wolverines men's basketball teams coached by Brian Ellerbe featured Robert "Tractor" Traylor and include the 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 teams?
• Hook 3... that Tommy Amaker coached the 2001–02, 2002–03, 2003–04, 2004–05, 2005–06 and 2006–07 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball teams, winning the 2004 NIT and finishing runner-up in the 2006 NIT?

The only UM basketball hook not accounted for with these multis is 2007-08 team. Cbl62 (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

this is getting really old. I wonder if these'd survive AFD? Thanks for putting the multis together. I wonder why Tony can't do it himself. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand the frustration. I do note, though, that Tony made an apology at the Suggestions page and noted his wikitime is "somewhat limited by family commitments this week." His edit summaries also indicate he's been spending time at a nursing home this week. The stress of WikiCup and family issues are apparently occurring at the same time. Under the circumstances, I don't mind preparing the multis and wish Tony the best with the family commitments. Cbl62 (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The obvious thing to do is to put in a prose multiplier to kill off the flood of stub-DYKs and stub-GAs for the Wikicup. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is really developing well, like a third world country; ie political development is going great guns and the content less so; corruption is an artform, hatcollection, invention endless bureaucracy posts to keep the political subordinates happy and prevent coups, graft etc etc despite the fact that the rate of content productivity is going down. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Rlevse, the relevant guideline about whether those articles would survive AfD can be found here-- I'm guessing they would survive due to the plethora of sources available about Michigan basketball teams from that time... Michigan really was among the basketball elite for sometime. With regards to the combined hooks, I think all of them are all just fine, good work on the combinations. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excellent work by Cbl to combine all those noms into three decent hooks. Now, who is going to verify them? :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not combining hooks. Yes my grandmother is very ill. My mother and I are returning to Memphis this morning by car from (New Orleans). I will be offline for the next several hours. (I have actually snuck out to Starbucks while my mother is still asleep).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. thanks for combining the hooks from 9 or 10 down to 3 multis and a single.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck to Tony. I am amazingly impressed that someone has found the time to put these hooks together, but as Gato notes someone has to volunteer to verify them. Tony notes he has 50 plus new articles and I'm guessing the wikicup is going to mean less people will need to create more articles as time progresses to keep up the pace. Victuallers (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal I'm willing to believe that Cbl62 has not only put together these hooks but checked them too. On this occasion is someone willing to agree that we just waive these hooks through. This time! Victuallers (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Stop bulls#itting. Did Sandy put you up to this? If you are looking for some racist reason to disqualify me you can surely come up with something better than saying that because one Michigan guy is helping another there is something afoul. Why don't you just disqualify my work because I am a smarta$$ black guy. We both do Michigan articles. We have probably worked together on more than a dozen GAs if not two dozen. We probably each have over 100 Michigan related DYKs. There is nothing going on against the rules here. I did all of these articles on my own laptop. Almost all edits from 9/18 until yesterday were from my grandmothers bedside using offline content created from downloaded PDFs. While she slept at the nursing home I created content. Every last one of these articles is valuable content for the project as an article that exemplifies the type of content that should be included in DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Excuse me? I'm just coming across this old comment, as I'm reading through all the problems caused by TonyTheTiger's participation in WikiCup, and I wonder why TTT was able to lodge an attack on me on this page without anyone notifying me, or anyone at least slapping his hand on his talk page for such gross incivility. BTW, who is the racist referred to here? Harumph. Amazing. These issues are occurring apparently at DYK and GAN equally, and FAC implemented changes in the nominator requirements to avoid flooding of ill-prepared noms. Is it time for WP:RFC/U? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Are you a "smarta$$ black guy"? Who'd have known. The problem here though isn't whether you're either black or a smarta$$, it's that the sequence of boring hooks is well, fucking boring. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
    • All DYK hooks are boring to some. These are fairly standard caliber hooks for sports teams.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Quite, but 30 almost identical hooks one after the other is boring to everyone. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
        • (ec) Having been pinged on my talk page to comment here, I could have cared less about the hooks before I read the above, let alone bothering to comment. Tony; your comments above appear to be in bad faith and very uncivil. I read Victuallers' comments along the along the lines of "acceptable compromise, let's make a one-time exception and end the dramas and debates so we can move on." I just want to end this now by opposing even the combined hooks, which are pretty boring, because of the attacks above. Yes, most hooks are boring to some or all of the readers. Tony, I'm sorry for your personal situation, but this is not Monopoly, and that is not a "Get out of jail free" card to excuse that attack. Imzadi 1979 → 22:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
          • • • Thanks, Imzadi-- yes, they were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
          • In case you missed it, I was quite badly maligned before responding in kind. My attack was not unsolicited. Yes make a one-time exception and throw the whole WP:CUP to the mushroom guy. After Tony responds to an attack with an attack. Let's ignore the first attack entirely. That makes sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
            • • Bullroar. I'd not been to this page in years, and your attack was on me, in a matter I had zero to do with in a process I don't even participate in. Your excuse holds no water at all, and I see you're not too preoccupied tonight to go about updating your reward pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
            • So this all about the WikiCup, and bugger the readers? Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
              • No it is about standard operating procedure. Basically, I created 17 DYK-eligible articles. They meet all the requirements of the WP:WIADYK as the rules are generally applied. Now we have a gang looking for ways to disqualify my points. The response is to attack me and when I respond to ignore the instigator so you can justify disqualifying my points. The articles are as encyclopedic as is necessary for DYK. They are all now 5x or 1500 chars. They have been combined to alleviate the concern of readers being overwhelmed with Michigan articles. They are no more boring than the other 100 perfectly acceptable hooks I have DYKed this year. There is no harm to the reader giving them these three hooks. The only harm is that the fan favorite Sasata might have to work a little harder to win the cup. I guess the ruling is an effort to give him the cup instead of making him earn it (no prejudice to Sturmvogel and the rest of the finalists).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
                • I could care less about the WikiCup, nor do I care for any kind of personal attack. Be the better man, Tony, and don't attack others, even when attacked. As for the first attack, I only see one here. Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
                • (edit conflict) So it's all about the WikiCup then. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • I seem to be missing something here. Were those angry comments directed at Victuallers, who magnanimously offered to allow the multis to proceed without requiring any further individual verification? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
                    • Yes, Tony's angry comments (making accusations of racism, no less) seemed a total non-sequitur to me as well --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• I was away from the Internet today and have the following thoughts. TONY: I do not believe that Victuallers' comment was remotely intended in the way you interpreted it. You are one of Wikipedia's hardest-working contributors, and folks appreciate that. There were, however, legitimate concerns about the mass Michigan basketball hooks. Wiki Cup has, IMO, a negative influence on the project. Instead of being fun (which is presumably its purpose), Wiki Cup causes valuable contributors like you to view their efforts as a competition rather than a collaboration. After a good night's sleep (a cure for many things in my experience), please take another look at Victuallers' comment and reconsider whether your response was appropriate. ALL: The multis above are factually accurate, but I have not checked the articles for length/expansion compliance. If someone wants to verify the hooks for those issues, that would be helpful. Cbl62 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one who feels he claimed that Cbl did all the work on these articles and we should just decline all the hooks?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

ber 2010 (UTC)

• • • The hooks, this set and prior ones, do or soon will meet DYK standards. But let's face it, this clogs the DYK queues with almost identical hooks for days in a row if they are not multi'd. It'd also clog the whole DYK pipeline. There've been what like 50 or so recently? Multi'ing is simple practical and common sense and still gives Tony credit for each one. And Tony, I feel you way overeacted with the angry comments, I still don't see where those came from--perhaps the stress of the situation with your relatives, for which I wish you the best. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I read it as proposing to promote them to the Prep Areas directly from here, rather than sending them back to T:TDYK for further approval, and, yes, giving some thanks to Cbl for combining the hooks, not for writing the articles. Courcelles 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (lots of edit conflicts) In reply to Tony - when Victuallers said "waive these hooks through", he meant "approve them". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I went through and examined some of the ones that were still out there. I found that 1990–91 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team did not meet the character requirements (it was about 400 short). I marked 1995–96 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team with a rejection note because it did not meet the character requirements in time for a new article, and thereafter failed to meet 5x standards later once Tony had nominated it. The source for the hook in 1997–98 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team did not state what the hook said at all (maybe Tony got his page numbers wrong?), instead of listing who Michigan had beaten in that were ranked #1, it just listed what various teams poll numbers were. I could not verify 1993–94 or 1994–95, because I didn't have the proper plug-in to view the records. Those checked out on the length and creation dates though. Nomader ^(Talk) 01:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Just a note though-- a lot of these did not meet character requirements when they were first nominated on the DYK page, and Tony expected a warning when he received a rejection from Victaullers... if you're going to nominate this many articles at once, I really think we should stress "quality over quantity" here. I'd be fine with this if all the articles were correctly cited and long enough upon nomination, but these backtracking reviews shouldn't be necessary. Also, could someone examine the Michigan records that I can't seem to access for the hooks I wasn't able to examine? Nomader ^(Talk) 01:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
          • • (ec)I have already noted on T:TDYK that I am going to be unable to bring 1990–91 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team up to standard. Will check 1997–98 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team tonight. Regarding 1995–96 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, often credit is given if a hook is short at day five but expanded before the date is no longer being reviewed. Debold whichever articles you must in the hook. I do think 90-91 should be debolded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
              • I added some content to 1990-91, so it may now comply. No DYK credit sought. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
                • Regarding 1997-98 are you talking about the original hook. It is in there on page 66.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to just count prose, instead of # of GA/FA/DYK, or else kill the worthless cup YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, just kill the WikiCup before it turns into a farce like a gold medal won by a "female" Chinese/East German swimmer YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Overarching comments:
• A lot has been thrown around above: unfair accusations, fair points, suggestions and rejections all. I agree with Tony that if when nominated, an article falls short, the nominator is free to continue expanding (in the general sense, not the DYK sense) the article until it is reviewed — but if there has been no work on an article in several days, obviously the nomination would still fail. Thus I disagree with the claim that after five days from original nomination, the remainder would have to be a 5x expansion.
• I agree the Wikicup is not conducive to DYK in its current format. Combining these articles into multi hooks are a decent way of solving the issue but it doesn't take away from the fact that there has been an overload of articles on the same topic. However, as long as the articles are eligible, this itself is not (as has been claimed otherwise) a legitimate reason to disapprove the nominations.
• Give me some time, I'll take a look again at which articles meet the requirements and list those that don't here; IMO whilst it would be nice for Tony to have the articles that don't meet the requirements in the multi-hook as a non-bolded article, it wouldn't be in the spirit of DYK. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Here are the results of DYKcheck. For crediting purposes, articles listed were created or expanded by Tony unless stated. I believe Tony nominated them all though, correct me if this is wrong. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Hook 1:
    • : 1990–91 (short of 1,500)
    • : 1991–92 (5x since Sept 14); 1992–93 (5x since Sept 14); 1993–94 (created Sept 14); 1994–95 (created Sept 14); 1995–96 (created Sept 14); 1996–97 (5x since Sept 14)
  • Hook 2:
    • : 1997–98 (created Sept 14); 1998–99 (created Sept 14*); 1999–2000 (created Sept 18 by Court Jester); 2000–01 (created Sept 18 by Court Jester)
    • *This hook needs to be modified slightly to avoid the hyphen/endash redirect.
  • Hook 3:
    • : 2001–02 (created Sept 18 by Court Jester); 2002–03 (created Sept 18 by Court Jester); 2003–04 (5x since Sept 18); 2004–05 (created Sept 18 by Court Jester); 2005–06 (created Sept 18 by Court Jester); 2006–07 (created Sept 18 by Court Jester)
      • I hold none of this against Tony, he just happened to submit a ton of articles about the same subject at a horrible time in our backlog. In the future though, I feel that we should stress that veteran DYK contributors should understand that in general, their article should already meet the standards once nominated instead of expecting a warning. Otherwise– Tony, I hope things take a turn for the better in real life, and I'm happy to agree with Strange Passerby's certifications. Let's get those multis out there. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Apology I seem to have misinterpreted Victuallers (talk · contribs) statement and defamed Sasata (talk · contribs) in the process for which I apologize.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse my confusion, are the above verification icons meant to indicate full verification, or are they just verifying that the articles have been created/expanded in an appropriate time frame? Gatoclass (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cbl62 verified them for factuality; I verified their lengths and dates. Therefore, those with verified marks are fully verified. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Multi hook setup

I'm setting these hooks up in my sandbox, all but the one Nomader noted in hook 1 that is short will get credit. I'll be removing them from T:TDYK and will put them into prep sets over the weekend. Don't panic Tony, they'll be in User:Rlevse/sandbox in the meantime. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

2007-08 should stay at T:TDYK as a separate hook I assume.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought Cbl expanded the 90-91 sufficiently. What happened with that one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See above, it's still short on readable prose, I double checked. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Court Jester also created 2001–02, 2002–03, 2004–05, 2005–06 and 2006–07 on September 19 and should recieve credit as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why wasn't he listed on the noms page? I used what was there. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding him, but still curious why he was left off. — Rlevse • Talk •

He was noted at T:TDYK--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Conversion templates at Bideford Bay

A template has been used in the hook for Bideford Bay (currently at P1), to convert an approximate (referenced) height of 200 feet into a precise (unreferenced) height of 61 metres. Can this be changed so that - if the metric height is required at all in the hook - it gives the correct approximate height of 60 metres? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed to metres as primary unit - this is what the (.uk) reference uses. Materialscientist (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Chicken Hawk hook in Queue 5

The following hook is presently in queue 5:

• ... that the 1994 documentary, Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys, helped popularize the pedophile group NAMBLA?

I am wondering what the word "popularize" means in this hook... is it saying that NAMBLA was made popular? That seems unlikely to me. If it is saying it made NAMBLA more well-known, then "popularize" seems an odd word choice. Checking the article doesn't help with clarifying the meaning, and the original source is not viewable on Google Books. I think we want to be careful before appearing to state on the main page that a documentary made NAMBLA popular, given that most people find NAMBLA offensive. EdChem (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Publicize" might be a better option. Gatoclass (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Or even "helped to raise awareness of", perhaps --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed to "helped to raise awareness of". — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but is that supported by the reference in the article? EdChem (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so and it's preferable to "popularize" (note I'm one who detests NAMBLA). The ref mentions being shown at film fests and video distro, so it's bound to have increased awareness of NAMBLA. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Access to Google Books may be regional or something, so, for those who can't view it, the source reads "In 1995, Chicken Hawk, a sixty-minute documentary on NAMBLA by an independent filmmaker, Adi Sideman, which premiered at film festivals and was later distributed by video outlets, helped popularize the group." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that source is a "gay" encyclopedia, so it arguably has a bias in favour of the subject. I think "raise awareness of" or "raise the profile of" are probably reasonable NPOV substitutes. Gatoclass (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On reflection, I think "raise awareness of" has some positive connotations that are undesirable in this context, so substituted "raise the profile of" instead. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I agree with you that something like "raise the profile of" or "raise the awareness of" are more likely intended meanings for the chosen word. I also think that one of them is more appropriate for the main page of Wikipedia. However, I take exception to the suggestion that the source is a "gay" encyclopedia, so it arguably has a bias in favour of the subject. LGBTQI people are no more in favour of NAMBLA, or child sexual abuse, than any other group in society, and suggesting otherwise is buying into one of the more pernicious and offensive anti-gay stereotypes. I certainly hope your comment was made without giving due consideration to the comment, and I invite you to withdraw it / strike it. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My comment certainly wasn't intended to suggest that homosexuality is equivalent to paedophilia, or that homosexuals in general might approve of such practices. However, I do think it possible that the authors of an encyclopedia on alternative sexuality might be inclined to be less judgemental about such matters than others. The very fact that they chose to use a word like "popularize" in such a context would appear to indicate as much. Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they were using the word to indicate that it "brought the group to popular attention", not to "bring it into popularity". In any event, "an encyclopedia on alternative sexuality" is not a "gay encyclopedia" as there are other alternatives in human sexuality beyond the heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual divisions. As a gay man, I'd prefer a different word choice be implemented because of the false stereotyping that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles.Imzadi 1979 → 08:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, it is a book about homosexuality specifically, as the title Gay histories and cultures: an encyclopedia clearly states. I would point out that it isn't myself who chose to include NAMBLA under that heading, but the authors of the book themselves. However, obviously I have no wish to offend, so if you would like to suggest an alternative wording for my post, I will certainly consider altering it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I just struck the comment instead. It wasn't really necessary to my point in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for striking the comment, Gatoclass. Since the source we are talking about is an encyclopedia, I think it is logical to assume that the authors would look to cover all topics neutrally, just as we do. I think we are looking at a case of a poor word choice, with the meaning Imzadi suggested ("brought the group to popular attention") being reasonable. The documentary makers chose to examine NAMBLA from the perpetrator's perspective, and have stated that they chose to allow their viewers to judge the comments made for themselves without lots of NAMBLA=bad editorialising. So, I can understand that there are suspicions of a pro-NAMBLA bias in the area. Just, please understand that any suggestion of a generalised gay = pro-paedophilia implication is something that strikes a nerve for me, the stereotype is incredibly damaging to the LGBTQI community. EdChem (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no probs, my apologies for the clumsy wording, which was obviously open to misinterpretation. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

← I don't know if it's just my sleep deprivation, but I think "raise the profile of" has more positive connotations than "raise awareness of". My first thought was the same as that of Gatoclass, and I still think "publicize" is the most neutral substitution suggested. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How about we forget the "helped" construction altogether, which itself is kind of awkward, and just say it brought the group increased attention? Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "brought increased attention to". Gatoclass (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A trout

to those who promoted the hook

... that Robert Rompre was drafted by the Marines but was allowed to play for the U.S. men's ice hockey team at the 1952 Winter Olympics where he set a record by scoring four goals in a single game? - (i) its reference is much too thin; (ii) phrasing is incorrect as 4 goals in one game might only be a record for 1952 games; (iii) one ref was unformatted. Materialscientist (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, hook was proposed by Alansohn, approved by NortyNort, and promoted by Grondemar. - Dravecky (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In their defence, the FDL Record did make the statement that was cited in the article and the hook. It was completely wrong, but that is neither Alansohn's fault nor that of the reviewers. Sometimes we can't help it if secondary sources blow it. Resolute 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch Materialscientist. My apologies, it appeared legit. There is more dubious information about him out there as well, this source states he was inducted into the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in 1992 but I can't find him.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mine is only trout, the catch is by an anon at WP:ERRORS (though 4 goals setting a record should make anyone doubt, I just never crossed with this nom). The U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame is a nice catch actually. Removed. Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I accept the fact that there are statements in the article that have been contradicted by other sources as caught by Materialscientist, but the statement made in the hook was backed by the provided reference. I agree with NortyNort that the United States Hockey Hall of Fame doesn't seem to be supported by the HoF web site, though the source explicitly supports the claim. I am always careful to provide multiple sources for my DYK articles and I accept a trout for the errors here. I can only try to be more careful to get better confirmation for any claims made in articles, but especially at DYK. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Increasing size of backload

The number of hooks waiting to get on the mainpage has been rising steadily; probably due to an increasing volume of proposed hooks. Creating extra prep areas really doesn't solve this problem. The only way to get things back under control is to update the mainpage more frequently. I would like to propose that we begin updating the mainpage every 4 hours instead of every 6; at least until the backload is cleared.4meter4 (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think six hours is already almost too short, especially for a "night shift" - and it's always night somewhere around the globe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The backlog seems relatively the same as the past few months. September 14 and 15 are pretty bad, according to the bot. We have discussed a lot here from clamping down on boring hooks, combining hooks, raising the article character limit to 2500, limiting hooks for creators/nominators and imposing a 5 day rule on unresolved issues. The prep areas weren't part of the solution, just a way to better manage the queues. I think one problem is a ton of hooks on the same subject. I recently saw an IP come on the suggestion page to complain about all the Wolverines' hooks. TFAR rates an article by how often it appears on the main page among other things. I think we should be able to do that, but to a lesser degree. DYK has to motivate editors but sometimes too much is more than enough for the system. Also, the long-term effects of the backlog has to be addressed and limiting their time on the main page may be a solution. What I think we can have is the creation of a "backlog state." By some quantified means, a "state of backlog" is declared. At that point, tougher rules are applied. When not in backlog, things can ease. I know backlog is hard to define as it always appears to be that way, but at times, the backlog eases.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the 4 prep areas. We can't stop the number of noms, but we can clamp down on the standards and rule enforcement, that is one thing that seems to be helping. The other is if more people review the older noms. When I do preps I pull about 99% of them from the older noms. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I also like the prep areas (my statement above wasn't a criticism). I was merely trying to point out that they don't solve the backlog. Indeed, the number of hooks at Template talk:Did you know has remained steadily around 80 even with more prep areas filled hooks (which indicates an increasing backload). Not to mention the growing number of special date hooks which are not counted.

In response to NortyNort, I don't think tougher rules would fly at DYK. That's too much of a headache to deal with. Think of all the upset people, arguements, temper tantrums, confusion among reviewers, etc. it will inevitably cause. A temporary speeding up of the updates is a much simpler and conflict free solution. Yes, it's regretable that articles get less than an ideal time on the mainpage; but something has to give somewhere. I can't remember when exactly, but I do think we have sped up update times before at DYK to solve the backload. I certainly remember high opposition to imposing higher standards to solve the backload problem when that suggestion was brought up in the past.4meter4 (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There's another way of reducing the backlog - rather than shortening the time things are on the main page, increase the number of items. There are currently nine DYK facts on the pasge - increasing it to 10, or more, would slowly reduce the backlog. I don't think it can be comfortably increased beyond 12, but even increasing it by just one to 10 will ease some of the pressure. Grutness...wha? 10:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice thought, but I don't believe the Main Page design will allow room for more than 9 hooks. I don't think there is anything we can do about that.4meter4 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a short TFA, we can squeeze more in for that whole day. But other than that, nothing else we can do about that. I agree clamping on boring hooks is hard. It is hard enough reviewing them; reviewers don't get much love as it is. This isn't the only thing I do on WP but one area where I think help is needed.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Clamping down isn't just for boring hooks. Article standards can and should be enforced, such as referencing; not to mention enforcing the5 day rule, etc. I also think we give some users too long to fix hooks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think clamping down on boring hooks may be easier than some think, and it may not cause the arguments and upset that one might expect. As someone who is fairly new to this and hasn't (yet) nominated any articles, I've challenged the "hookiness" of quite a few boring-seeming (to me) hooks over the last few weeks. In some cases the nominator has responded by proposing a better hook. In other cases they've let me or someone else propose a better hook. In other cases again, they've defended the "hookiness" of their hook - not always convincingly, but politely. None of them responded by getting upset or having a temper tantrum. I'm sure it happens occasionally, but it hasn't so far for me.

Now, although this hopefully improves the hookiness of what appears on the front page, it may not be obvious that it helps with the backlog. But I think, indirectly, it does. When a nominator needs to go back and find a more interesting hook, or justify the one they have, they realise they can't just bash together an article, grab the first "fact" that comes to mind, DYK it and then immediately do the same with another article. They have to put the effort in to produce what DYK is supposed to require. It is not a conveyer belt for every single article they produce.

One would assume that new editors who are about to submit their first DYK, often read the existing nominations and responses, to get an idea of what is acceptable. If they see that dull hooks are challenged, it encourages them to spend a bit of time thinking of a decent hook, rather than - again - just throwing it into DYK under the assumption that reviewers don't really care whether the hook is interesting or not, and that it's just a non-sentient conveyer belt for their article to appear on the front page.

I can see the sense of the "backlog state" idea, but I think it's an extra unnecessary rule/procedure (of which there are plenty already). I'd like to suggest just making the assumption that we are generally in a backlog state, and that we should always be "tougher" on dull-sounding hooks. A fair number of reviewers seem to approve nominations based only on the newness, length, and verifiability criteria, apparently without really thinking whether the hook is a genuinely eye-catching fact or not. This is detrimental to what appears on the front page, encourages the "conveyer belt" mentality, and thereby contributes to the backlog.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think "clamping down" is an adequate solution? I know that I myself always apply the full weight of the rules (including evaluating "boringness"), as do most of the regular DYK reviewers. Sure, some inexperienced reviewers probably let some slip by, but it seems to me that most reviewers are dilligent in enforcing the 5 day rule and not letting articles with shoddy refs get past, etc. Further, the majority of hooks are supplied by serial DYK contributors who know how to create good noms. The backload is therefore mostly made up of problem free hooks. I don't think a crack down is going to improve the situation by much.4meter4 (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Don't see how ignoring boring hooks will help the backlog any; if anything it'd just leave more nominated hooks on the candidate page and create an ever larger backlog. I know that when I review noms I'm quite a stickler for the five-day rule, and I'd like to see this enforced more. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting ignoring boring hooks, I'm suggesting questioning them more often. This doesn't "create an ever larger backlog" - a reviewer approving a nom (boring or not) so that it gets moved to a prep area does not really reduce the backlog, it just moves the problem around (since only so many hooks can appear on the front page per day.)

"the majority of hookes are suppled by serial DYK contributors who know how to create good noms" - or, in some cases, know their noms are unlikely to get challenged even if they have not put a lot of thought or effort into the hook? I think that contributes to the problem.

I'm not saying that this will have a massive impact on the backlog, or that other measures might not be needed. Just pointing out what I've seen in the nominations and how they are reviewed over the last few weeks.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Question: How much weight do we give to the nominator's view when considering combining hooks. There are two hooks on T:TDYK at the moment that I have suggested be combined, as one of the ALT hooks for DYK nom A wikilinks to the article for DYK nom B. The nominator is not in favour. I can understand the nominator's perspective, and he recently had a DYK nom rejected so I don't want to upset him, but I do wonder what the usual practice is with such suggestions for combining noms, especially given the backlog. EdChem (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the backlog, unless there's a really compelling reason not to, we should always combine hooks. More than 5 hooks make it eligible for the DYK hall of fame. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The backlog has actually been considerably reduced over the last few weeks - it's down from around 380 to 250. I see no need for radical action at this point. However, I do agree with Rlevse that when we have a backlog, hooks should be combined into multis wherever practical. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion here may have been getting sidetracked. If there is a problem (and I'm not the one to judge that), then I doubt that it's down to potential multi-noms not being combined, or due to articles of the wrong age slipping through. I haven't seen any figures presented, but I suspect that these are minor factors. Disallowing "boring" hooks is subjective, and could lead to acrimony. The simplest solution, it seems to me, is to remove the assumption that any DYK nomination with a tick will make it to the front page. Just because a hook is eligible, doesn't mean it has to go there. The backlog could be reduced if those editors who compile the prep areas occasionally pass over the least good hooks that are available to them. It might also make it easier for them to ensure a balance between different fields. If we've got more hooks than can be reasonably put on the front page (which is a good thing, from the point of view of the encyclopaedia, don't forget), then that just means that not all of them can go on the front page, unless anyone is prepared to update every 3 hours, or every 2. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK icon template

I couldn't find any existing templates for this, so I thought I'd try out my template-writing skills and make one for use in my userpage: User:28bytes/DYK

Is there already a template like this in the main template space (maybe being subst:'ed?) Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

{{DYK?}} rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

{{icon|DYK}} also does it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Similar icon, but what I was wondering was if there was a template that would generate the link and rollover text? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Older nom reviews needed

We're slipping behind here again. Can reviewers pitch in on older noms? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Great work on this folks. Let's continue to keep an eye on older noms. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Noms from September 21 need clearing, they're sitting there stale. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK with stub templates?

I am noticing in the last couple of days that there have been a lot of DYK articles with stub templates. Has the policy changed on this to allow stub templates? If so, when did that happen? Chris (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#No stubs. Shubinator (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not changed. By definition, an article that meets DYK standards (1500 char of readable prose) is no longer a stub. The reviewers should be removing these stub markings. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, reviewers should when approving articles for length both remove any stub templates and re-rate the article on the talk page WikiProject banners (if any) as at least Start-class. –Grondemar 02:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I routinely remove them and often they are classified stubs by WikiProject assessments on the talk page. In that case, I make the article a start, at least.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Having a stub template is absolutely not an issue for featuring a DYK article - its has to be 1500 bytes of prose or 5x expanded; it automatically qualified as non-stub after that, and should never be demoted just because someone forgot to remove the stub template. Those templates merely add extra categorization and invite to expand the article. Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I partially disagree with the above statements. An article can exceed 1500 characters of readable prose and still be a stub. Per WP:STUB, There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. While very short articles are likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which there is very little that can be written. Conversely, there are subjects about which a lot could be written – their articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long. There's no problem with a reviewer removing stub templates, but we should not always consider a 1500+ character article a non-stub. cmadler (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Instances of articles over 1500 characters of readable prose that still do not provide a serviceable overview of the subject are handled by Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules#D7. --Allen3 ^talk 19:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@Cmadler and Allen - yes, its all true, 1500 bytes of prose doesn't guarantee the article to be ample. However. We are talking about two different cases: (i) classified as stub before DYK expansion; (ii) re-classified as stub after the expansion. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Extreme resistance to my DYK

I'm still quite new to DYK but people seem to be opposing a lot of the articles I'm putting forward (e.g. Jewish lawyer, Criminal black man). The latest is here, against Black people and crime in the United Kingdom, and there are five or six editors ganging up on me. The hook is

• that in 2009–10 the majority of males proceeded against by police for gun crimes, robberies, and street crimes in London were black?

All the concerns which relate to the rules I have addressed, but people are just saying they don't want it without justifying why. Therefore, I wonder if someone would be brave enough to put this in the queue? All I'm trying to do is put forward interesting hooks amongst a lot of boring ones, and I seem to be getting punished for it. (If people want to have a wider debate about 'controversial' hooks and to change the rules to reflect that, they can, but it's not the intention of this thread.) Christopher Connor (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with several concerns raised by the reviewers (particularly those raised by 28bytes), namely, the article should probably be retitled, and concerns about balance and neutrality in the article. Additionally, the article appears to be significantly incomplete, which is explictly against DYK rules. The "Explanations" section is marked as needing expansion, and the "Media" section consists of a single, unsourced sentance. If these issues are addressed, I see no reason why this article couldn't be in DYK, but these are all legitimate concerns. cmadler (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, failure to assume good faith by accusing DYK reviewers - who already don't get a lot of love for what we do - of "ganging up" on you isn't going to help your cause. FWIW I agree with what cmadler has said above, the article as it stands is too incomplete to promote for DYK. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I think the BLP argument is a red herring as this is a large group--not what BLP was designed for. 28bytes make some valid points except I think if it is renamed to "race and crime..." people will bitch about why other minorities aren't mentioned. Some of the objections smack of political correctness because it's a well documented fact that minorities in many countries are arrested and incarcerated at a higher rate than the racial majority in those countries and articles neutrally and objectively addressing a sensitive topic should not be turned away. The second legit objection is that even if a hook is well sourced and true, we avoid hooks that'd upset large groups of people or are highly sensitive (ex: we didn't put a 9/11 hook up this Sep 11th, we put it up a few days later). It appears many of the concerns have already been addressed, so in my view add in quotes 28bytes mentioned, tone down the hook, and an acceptable hook will result. As for the Jewish lawyer article, there are similar articles such as Stereotypes of African Americans. Copying this to the DYK nom thread too also. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

American Honda Motor Company

Currently in Queue 1, I wanted to link "automaker" to Automotive industry but the hooks are currently cascade-protected. Could an admin please add the wikilink before this goes up on the main page? Zunaid 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Darius Dhlomo

Unresolved

Hi. This is currently in Prep Area 3, just wanted to make sure it doesn't get listed at a time when most South Africans will be fast asleep (UTC +2). Can someone please ensure it ends up in a queue that would be a reasonable hour and move it if necessary? Zunaid 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment it looks like this hook will go up at 3AM South African time. Can someone please swap it into the next queue? Zunaid 08:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: How should backlogs at DYK be handled?

There has been a recent backlog of hooks for DYK and a no solid consensus about how best to reduce it. See the top of this page (and the archives) for continuing and previous discussions. Placed (very belatedly) by request. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the backlog has been generally shrinking for last month of so, with the current number of nominations on the suggestions page in the 200 to 220 range. Based upon the level of submissions we have been seeing for the last week or two, a better question would be when should we return to 8 hooks per update? At a run rate of 32 hooks per day an inventory of 160 to 180 hooks on the submission page is near optimal for sustained operations as it provides the needed time to perform validation while still allowing for fairly short wait times. --Allen3 ^talk 19:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Stay at 9 hooks, wikicup will always come again and make us more behind. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If the number of submissions dips too low, it gets really difficult to create decent updates. When is the next Wikicup round? Gatoclass (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As per info at Wikipedia:WikiCup, the current and final round for the year ends on October 31. I have not seen a schedule for the 2011 WikiCup, but the signup page shows it will begin on January 1. --Allen3 ^talk 19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if the next Wikicup round is not until next year, we will certainly have to return to 8 hooks before then judging by the current rate of decline. In fact if the burn rate stays the same as it has been, I would think we'd have to return to 8 some time within the next week. Gatoclass (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's worry about that when we and IF we actually don't have 9 qualified hooks for a queue. Otherwise we're shooting ourselves in the foot ahead of time and unneccessarily. Right now we are behind in reviewing old noms (again, because most people only look at new ones) and there are plenty to choose from. This would actually have the side benefit of forcing people to review old noms. I strongly object to cutting back to 8 so soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb has always been that 180 hooks at T:DYK and a full queue constitutes "normal". Above that is getting backloggish, below is on the thin side. There are currently 204 hooks at T:TDYK so we are only slightly above the watermark. At the current burn rate, we will be below it in a few days. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gato's message above, I don't see any problem here. The list of hooks waiting for review on T:TDYK does not seem particularly longer than I remember it being on average ever since I started following this project 2 years ago. That's just my impression though; someone might be able to dig up some statistics or graphs to quantify the backlog better. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There are currently 215 hooks, lat night there were 202. That's enough for four days if all get approved. 80 (37%) are red or pink. Less than half of that 80 are approved and many of those haven't even been looked at. I will agree that this all depends on the burn rate and how many new noms we get. Do we need to panic yet, no. Do we need to keep an eye on this, yes. On the older nom topic, entire prep sets are built from the older noms yet some people stay in the new zone. I don't think this is fair to the older noms and those who nom'd/wrote them. While I am fully aware I am not the only who works the old noms, there aren't enough of this who care about this. Yes I know I'm discussing two different, albeit related topics here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think, in addition to thinking about the number of hooks in each update from a backlog perspective, we should also think about it from a presentation perspective. Too many DYK hooks in a single update means that it is less likely that any individual hook is clicked as they come across as a wall of text. Ideally I think we should go back to eight hooks per update as soon as it is feasible. –Grondemar 14:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Back when my very first hook appeared on DYK, it only took about 3 days from nomination to so appear and only 3 or hooks would appear. The whole issue is driven by how many noms we get and ever since WikiCup was born we get inundated. I wonder if ever we'll run out of all but a few new article ideas. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

For a little perspective on the size of the backlog and the effectiveness of current efforts to reduce its size, please consider the following table. All numbers were taken from the first update of Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count on or after midnight (UTC).

Date	# of Hooks	Date	# of Hooks
October 2	208	September 25	257
October 1	216	September 24	253
September 30	227	September 23	264
September 29	243	September 22	255
September 28	235	September 21	258
September 27	248	September 20	253
September 26	248	September 19	257

Checking time stamps of various discussions shows that issues about behavior of some WikiCup contestants came to a head around September 23/24. Up until that time we were holding our own, but seeing only small improvements in the backlog. In the week since then, we have seen a 15-20% reduction in the backlog. Additionally, WikiCup will only have a realistic effect on the backlog for about 3 more weeks (submissions arriving less than a week before the end of the contest may not appear on the Main page in time to score points). Given the reduction in backlog and the upcoming two month reprieve from WikiCup, it seems inappropriate for the contest to be the primary consideration in our short term planning. When looking a month or two out, I am wondering when we will be needing to cut back to only three updates per day like we did for the last three weeks of last December. --Allen3 ^talk 15:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, things can turn around suprisingly quickly. Nice analysis, BTW. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Darius Dhlomo redux

Can someone please swap the poor guy from Queue 4 to Queue 6? He is currently due to go up at 9PM on a Sunday night South African time, far better to go up at 9AM on a Monday morning. Thanks. Zunaid 17:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shimgray | talk | 00:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Prep Area 4, Coral Sea / snake double nom

There is a hook presently in prep 4 that states:

• ... that at least seventeen species of sea snake live in the Coral Sea, of which one has the most toxic snake venom in the world?

But, the article on the snake says it is the most toxic sea snake and the third most toxic of all snakes, so the hook seems misleading to me. How about something like:

• ... that at least seventeen sea snake species live in the Coral Sea, including Dubois' seasnake with the world's most toxic sea snake venom?
• ... that Dubois' seasnake is one of at least seventeen sea snake species living in the Coral Sea, and has the world's most toxic sea snake venom?

EdChem (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I've changed it to the last option. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Prep 1

There are 3 hooks about Hawaii (2 about Kauai) in this set. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A museum, a mayor, and a missionary. I think that's sufficiently different. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone was unhappy with how the rules for DYK work

This appears to be about the rules, not about DYK nominations, so I am moving it here if anyone wants to discuss it. I am only including some of the wordy context... for the sake of context. I might trim some later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: the original discussion was about the eligibility of Four boxes of liberty. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is not a strict cutoff; reviewers exercise their judgment. In this case it's clear that the article was not really 5x expanded (it has some additions and removals, but the net expansion was not 5x). The length of time an article would need to sit around in its shortened state varies from case to case. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• But virtually no content was carried forward, and a huge amount was added. The earlier version seem to be mostly just unsourced comments from Ed Howdershelt. A clear rule on elapsed time would help a lot. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Again: DYK does not care what the quality of the pre-existing version was. You are welcome to start a discussion at the talk page about this but I think you're just looking for a loophole. Like I said, reviewers exercise their judgment in these cases (otherwise we could just replace them with a bot that scans article histories) and in this case the choice is quite clear. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• As I have said above, I agree that the article is inappropriate and withdraw the nomination. I believe the rules need clarification. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion page for the rules is thataway. But for what it's worth, rule A4 clearly states that expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter whether you kept any of it—trimming part of it right before the expansion begins doesn't lower your threshhold. And before anyone complains that "oh the rule is hard to find because it's buried in a bunch of other rules"...the whole reason that situation exists is because of people insisting on "clear" and "simple and objective" rules (your words, not mine [10] and [11]) to cover every possible contingency in an inherently subjective project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• In this example the editor who nominated the article for AfD trimmed it drastically before nominating, and another editor (me) did a rescue job without looking at previous versions and nominated for DYK. That is irrelevant history. The tagline is far from politically correct and should never have been submitted. But it may be possible and useful to clarify and simplify the rules on expansion count for cases where there is no resemblance between the old and new versions. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what needs clarification or simplification here, the rules are pretty clear if you ask me. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. There is a lot of scope for reviewer initiative, as was pointed out already, but apart from that, any "clarification" would seem to be rule creep, which no-one really wants.

Also, I forgot to inform Aymatth2 that I moved this here, so I will do that now, unless I find that it has already been done. Thank you to Mandarax for adding the context for the discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Hourglass effect

An attempt to clarify the issue, and request views:

• Some articles go through an hourglass effect. Maybe an article on a company or individual starts with a dump of self-promoting puff. It gets trimmed down and puffed up again until a serious editor cuts it back to basics and builds it up again from verifiable sources, which may result in an article that has little resemblance to the original. The original talked about the company's mission, vision, values, leadership etc. and the new one talks about the financial problems, environmental issues and the big bribery scandal. The subject is the same, but the new version has very little resemblance to the original. The editor who worked on the new and improved article may feel it is worth nominating for DYK. The article now contains only the puff-free content they researched and added, with nothing from the original.

• The question is how the 5x expansion rule is calculated. Five times what? If it is five times the largest historical version, full of puff, the new article can never qualify. If it is five times the smallest version of the article before the current expansion, an editor could just gut an article and then restore the content. Rule A4 is vague: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article". There has to be some definition of what "previously existing" means. The last version before the expanding editor got started seem like a simple one, but that seems open to abuse. Last version from the day before, a week before... Sort of mechanical and also open to abuse.

• A judgement of some sort between how much the pre-hourglass version resembles the post-hourglass one. That seem impossible.

• To see what triggered this, see the hourglass history of Four boxes of liberty, which was nominated with a politically incorrect tagline but rejected based on an interpretation of the 5x rule. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is very simple: 5x expansion is calculated from when the editing burst began. Think about what the purpose of DYK is; it's to show content that is probably new for readers. Therefore, 5x expansion is calculated against the version that past readers probably saw. In the Four boxes of liberty case, the shortened version was up for so little time hardly anyone saw it. On the other hand, if someone trimmed an article and it sat around that way for 2 years before expansion, then of course we would calculate expansion against the version that was in place for 2 years, not against the big version before that. Most cases are pretty easy to judge if you just think about the goal of DYK instead of trying to follow some hard-and-fast rule. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This has always been a bit of a grey area, but my approach has always been that if the trimming was done by another user, and there is no reason to suspect collusion between the trimmer and the expander, then the x5 should be calculated from the trimmed version. In this case it appears one user trimmed it and nominated it for AfD and another came along and rescued it, so there seems little reason to suspect collusion here. Other points in favour of the expansion, I think, are that the previous version was mostly a quote, which we usually don't count as main body content, and that the article had no references. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Two points: 1) from when the new burst began. Use PDA script or DYK check and compare the readable prose of the version just prior to the burst to the current version readable prose. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case there were, in a sense, two editing "bursts" very close together. One when the article was being trimmed down prior to AfD nomination, and a second that began a few hours later when the rescue attempt started. If the rescue work had not begun quite so soon, perhaps delayed by 48 hours, would it have counted as a separate "burst"? The underlying principle is that the article content should be primarily (at least 80%) new material added in the last five days. Not sure if this is practical, but perhaps when an article has been trimmed significantly and then expanded again, the criteria should be a) fivefold since the version just before expansion began (which could be in the middle of a "burst" with an AfD rescue like this) plus b) less than 20% overlap of content between the expanded version and recent versions prior to trimming. Checking the second criterion cannot be done mechanically, but seems important. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? Can you give date and times of the edits you're talking about? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is Four boxes of liberty. If you check the history you can see the trimming, AfD nomination at 01:53 on 25 September 2010, then rescue job expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case readable prose and a 5x determination varies greatly depending on whether you use before or after the trim as the base version. And yes, in this case it is a bit of a gray area. In this article's case there is such a huge difference in the article quality and text, I'd use the trimmed version and hence call it a 5x expansion. But I don't see it on the DYK nom page and it's now outside the 5-day window for noms ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was nominated, see original discussion, then flagged as "Not 5X". Based on the discussion that followed, it seemed possibly offensive to quote the meme in DFK, so I accepted that it could be withdrawn. DYK is not the place to introduce controversy. That is history. The question is, can we clarify the rule for determining 5X expansion? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

@Rlevse: The problem with that is that the DYK rules explicitly say "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was"[12], meaning (as you know; I'm just reiterating to be clear for everyone reading) we don't give nominators a free pass because of things like "oh, the earlier version was unreferenced, so adding references counts as expansion". What you are saying, though, (count from the trimmed version) is tantamount to saying "remove all the stuff that you think is bad and then start again from there", which is the opposite of "count fivefold expansion no matter how bad the article was", which is the version of the rule that has had DYK community consensus for a while. Of course, consensus can change, but we'd need a discussion to see if it actually has. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

@Rjanag: but count from what version of the article? what if the trimmed version is in place for a year? What about the rule about new content? ::@Aymatth2: I could care less about political correctness. I call 'em as I see 'em. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think if a trimmed version has been sitting around a year it makes sense to count from that (given that it's likely to have been seen by a lot of readers); if it's been sitting around for an hour then it doesn't make sense to count from that (given that what readers have probably seen is the old, untrimmed version, so a new version will not look like a 5x expansion to readers unless they pore through the article history). In between might be fuzzy, and I don't think there is a specific number of days at which we can draw a line for each and every article; it needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis using reviewers' best judgment. Someone might complain that this is not objective and not "fair", but hey, DYK is not fair anyway; we evaluate hook interestingness and a lot of other things subjectively. If someone wants a completely objective DYK process, they should replace reviewers with a bot. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't repeat myself like you did ;-), so we'll just have to disagree on this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) The current rule does say "no matter how bad it was", but in practice there have been plenty of precedents for ignoring transparently terrible prose when counting the x5. If for example, an article is just patent nonsense, vandalism, gibberish, why on earth would we count that as legitimate? "No matter how bad it was" is a useful cover for reviewers, but per IAR one is always entitled to exercise a little common sense. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

After seeing this inevitably turn into this prior to AfD and finally into this, I would support the nomination. Ed Howdershelt's 'war story' was on the same level of "need to remove" as a copyvio IMO. Even if the variations section remained, 5x was met. I know the rule states "no matter how bad it was" but I believe the editor created new content and did a great job. Consensus should prevail for special cases like this in the future.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in cases of total rewrites, instead of considering 5x expansion we should look at these articles as new articles and accept them if there are 1,500 characters of new content. If any content is carried over then we'd go looking for the fivefold expansion. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Does seem to me to be a case to WP:IAR-resurrect the nomination and pass it for DYK. EdChem (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Random break

The consensus so far seems to be that in this one case the rules were maybe applied a bit too rigidly, and an article that could have qualified was withdrawn. But it seems that this was a very unusual case and generally the process works fine. Editors helping with DYK should continue to use their best judgement. Formal rules can never cover every possible situation. Best to keep them reasonably simple. On the WP:IAR suggestion, I would be against making an exception and setting a precedent with this article unless we were desperately short of DYK candidates, which is not the case. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. No one doubts the good intentions or efforts of the reviewer, but equally if the consensus here is that the outcome should have been different, there is no disrespect meant to the reviewer. The idea that WT:DYK consensus can change decisions about hooks is hardly setting a precedent. My observation is that such occurences are not that unusual. Rather than being concerned for the rules, how about we consider the original nominator? Why is altering a decision we agree was borderline and crediting the efforts of the nominator such a bad thing to do? There is a person on the other end of the wiki-identity, to me that person is more important than the possible effect of an "exception" on some rules. EdChem (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In principle you are right: if a mistake has been made it should be corrected. We should not discourage contributors. In this case, the nominator is not at all concerned with the decision to drop it - for different reasons he thought the tagline might not be appropriate anyway - and only brought up the subject because he thought it might be useful to have a clearer definition of the 5X rule. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, while strictly speaking, this did not qualify as a 5x expansion for DYK purposes, and so no reviewer could be faulted for rejecting it, this would have been a good case to ignore all rules; more than half of the pre-existing article content was a comment that probably should have been on the talk page. cmadler (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is ambiguity in the 5X rule. Possibly the article qualified under one interpretation, not another. Somewhere up above I proposed a clarification: 5X over the most recent version before the expansion started even if there was trimming shortly before, plus content is 80% new compared to older versions, which is a bit subjective. But it seems that the scenario is quite unusual: AfD trim immediately followed by rescue expansion with very different content, and then DYK nom. Complicating the rules to deal with oddball situations like this would probably be more bad than good. I could see endless loopholes being picked in the loopholes. I am inclined to leave the rules, then grant exceptions if the nominator protests strongly and with evident good reason. The basic principle is that the article should in effect be a new article, with 80% new content in the last five days. We can use common sense. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

An observation

Sometimes when we check an online source, we find that the page creator has made a mistake in quoting it or interpreting it, and we can correct the mistake and approve the page. But when the source is offline or foreign-language, we have no idea if the page creator quoted it correctly. Instead, we give it an automatic approval. Is this state of affairs satisfactory? Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not ideal but I think disallowing offline sources causes more problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF? Physchim62 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Entertaining the possibility that a page creator could make a mistake in quoting or interpreting an offline or foreign-language source, is not failing to assume good faith. However I agree with Rlevse that the disadvantages of having to consider all offline or foreign-language sources as insufficient, outweigh the advantage of thereby removing the potential for approval of an item that contains a mistake. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't give automatic approval to offline or foreign language sources. Many or most offline sources can be verified with the help of Google Books, and if they can't I wouldn't accept something that looks dubious or unreliable. Online translation tools help with many foreign language sources, but if you are in doubt you could ask for review by someone who speaks the particular language. Articles that use offline or foreign language sources should certainly not be penalized at DYK. BabelStone (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My approach is similar to that of Babelstone. As a general rule however, I give more scrutiny to submissions by new users or users with an unknown track record than I do to those from known and trusted users in good standing. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So do I. Yoninah (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncredited nom

Hi guys, where do I complain?! :) I had a double nom for Church of St Demetrius, Patalenitsa and Patalenitsa and the two recently appeared on the main page. I only got credit for the church article, not the village article. You can see that it was a double nom in the hook, see the box at Talk:Church of St Demetrius, Patalenitsa. I want my yellow box or I'm gonna throw a tantrum all around here! :) Cheers, — Toдor Boжinov — 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. When you create noms for more than one article or where more than one person gets credit for an article, after you save the edit, open it again to ensure the template processed it as needed. A lot of people don't do this and it causes this sort of problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't searched through the T:TDYK archives to check, but it could also have been an error in when the hook got moved to prep, which happens sometimes. In this case when Bruce1ee put the hooks in Prep4[13], the credit for the second article was missing. If it turns out to be his mistake we should clearly fire him.</sarcasm> rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not Bruce's fault; the credit was already missing when he promoted it [14]. Someone else will have to be fired instead. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

When the articles were originally nominated, only one {{DYKmake}} template was created. This original error was not caught by the time the hook was promoted. - Dravecky (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake then, I didn't know I had to use another {{DYKmake}} for a double nom. Thought it's about looking at the heading and/or counting bold links :) I'll know for the future. Thanks guys for the replies and the credit :) — Toдor Boжinov — 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also my mistake, I should have spotted that when I promoted the hook. Sorry. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hook swap in queues

I nominated a triple-article hook (Larry Taylor (gridiron football), 2004 Motor City Bowl, 2007 Meineke Car Care Bowl) for DYK which was approved and placed in queue 6. Unfortunately, this set is scheduled to run between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM EDT, when virtually everyone who cares about American college football will be asleep. Is it possible for the hook to be swapped for one in a later queue, perhaps queue 2, which right now has very few US-related topics in its set? –Grondemar 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! –Grondemar 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Another bonnet

I just expanded another bonnet article, Mycena inclinata, and if it's not too much trouble, would like to have it added to the 10-part bonnet hook currently sitting in Prep 1. The new hook would read as follows:

... that bonnets may be orange (pictured), clustered, scarlet, frosty, mealy, ivory, grooved, snapping, milking, bleeding, or bulbous?

I calculated the expansion at 5.03X (1195B to 6019B). If this is a hassle, no problem, I can make a separate hook for it. Thanks for your time. Sasata (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Expansion and source confirmed, and added to the hook. Ucucha 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the bother, but I knocked up another one, Mycena leptocephala. Please add nitrous somewhere in the hook. Thanks again! Sasata (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha 01:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Real-world context"

Hi guys, I just added a hook back to T:DYK after DragonflySixtyseven removed it because it was "pertaining only to fiction with no real-world context." If his action was correct, let me apologize in advance, but I didn't wanted to unfairly punish a nominator whose article had already been approved. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Geez, will DS ever figure out consensus on the way he does this is clearly against him? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall we've had discussions on this issue - hooks purely talking about fictional plot - before. Did we reach any consensus back then? (Sorry I wasn't a participant in the discussions) --BorgQueen (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and DS's interpretation was soundly out-consensused (do I get credit for creating a word?). IIRC it was about 6 weeks ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In my mind it was entirely inappropriate for that hook to be removed unilaterally by a single administrator without there being a serious problem with it like WP:BLP or WP:HOAX. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove an approved hook from the Main Page. –Grondemar 00:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't notice that, but the fact that it was already approved makes this even more inappropo. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I found the archived thread: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_57#Clarification_for_.22real-world_context.22_in_DYK_rules --BorgQueen (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BQ, okay, so it was 7 weeks ago ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I would have intercepted it earlier if I hadn't been terribly busy these past few days. My point is that it's not a fact. It's a fiction, a lie, a figment, an invention. It was made up, and there's no way we can change that. DS (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not getting it DS. Your interpretation of the fiction rule is out of whack with IIRC everyone but yourself and your unilateral removal of an approved hook is unacceptable. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is disruptive IMO, especially after we have discussed it thoroughly already. Previously, we had thought the point was clear and it would stop.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I already told him that on his talkpage. Do we need to ban him from T:TDYK? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted him again. I support the ban. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also... hook switched here in Q2 and I don't think it made it back to the suggestions. Another hook also removed from Q6, don't think that one made it back on the suggestion page as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just put Neuilly sa mère ! back onto the discussion page after waiting quite a it for DS to do the proper thing. - Dravecky (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was probably my error in approving the last one for promotion. As discussion about the hook had focussed on other issues, it seems I overlooked the fact that the phrase "social juxtaposition" rather than "social inequality" was used, which are not necessarily the same thing.

In regards to the larger question about "fictional" hooks, I don't think we did actually come to a firm conclusion in the last discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"... that Ribby baked a mouse pie for Duchess, but Duchess thought she was eating her own veal and ham pie?" would have been a wholly-fictional hook, and so not acceptable according to Rule C6 ("If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way"). But "... that a veal and ham pie is a critical plot element in Beatrix Potter's The Tale of the Pie and the Patty-Pan?" is perfectly OK by my understanding, as it places a fictional veal and ham pie in the context of the creation of a real world book written by a real world author (a plot element is an aspect of the writing of the book, and not part of the fictional world of Peter Rabbit and his friends). I would like to see the original hook reinstated. BabelStone (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

He did it again? Unbelieveable. Formal call for ban from DYK. I've posted on his talk to read this thread again. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is we still don't have a clear interpretation of the rule. The last discussion kind of petered out without a conclusion. DF's somewhat aggressive approach aside, I think interpretation of this rule still needs some clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if we grant that point for the moment, he's been very disruptive and ignoring significant concerns. Towit: his edits mentioned in the last 8 hours or so. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to Rlevse? The removals from the queue/mainpage? Given the lack of clarity over the rule, I don't think he can be sanctioned for that. It appears he did not restore the contested hooks to suggestions, which is obviously a problem. But I don't know of anything else he has done, have I missed something? Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not just the queue; he yanked the Hold On! hook right off the front page today without discussion or restoration. - Dravecky (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said "queue" above I meant both the queue and mainpage, I've rectified that now. There is no rule which says hooks cannot be pulled from the mainpage if they are problematic. The failure to restore to T:TDYK is obviously an issue. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd gone to sleep. Henceforth I will restore problematic hooks to Suggestion status. DS (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only that; if you must remove approved hooks without consensus, then you also need to remove the credit from the queue, so people don't keep getting messages for articles that don't appear.

But since you seem to have so many issues with the job that other reviewers do, given how often you are removing their approved hooks from queues, why don't you save everyone (including yourself) trouble and just be more active in the review process, instead of waiting around to remove hooks later? Then we won't have to have this argument about whether you're right or wrong; just raise your objections before hooks get promoted at all. Many of them are very easy to address.

Or, on the other hand, if you can't be bothered to participate in the review process, maybe you shouldn't take the time to rule the queues either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Thanks. When you do remove hooks however, please be sure to restore the previous discussion about the hook, and a new comment of your own, so that the current state of play is clear. Given the controversy over your previous removals however, I think you should start a thread on this page outlining your concerns before removing hooks from the queue/mainpage until further notice. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that DS has just said he'll restore them but made no mention of rectifying this issue, yes, let's settle this once and for all. If DS can participate here enough to do that, then we need to proceed with the ban. He still seems to fail to realize there's a problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I do review DYK a lot. But not all the time (I was at a convention this weekend). So, let's see: if I feel I must remove a hook that's gotten all the way to the front page, or from one of the queue pages, then I must a) return it to the suggestions page for further discussion, and b) remove the credits from the queue. Have I missed a step c) or d) ? (And please note, most of the changes I make to the template pertain to grammar and punctuation.) DS (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what the people above are saying is that they don't want you to remove hooks that you don't "feel" good about without first discussing the hook in question here. (See Gato's message just a bit above this.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the important bit. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: It should also be noted that the template T:DYK is full-protected indefinitely. This means that it can only be edited by administrators. This means that any disruption ongoing at that template page, is due to such disruption being caused by active administrators. This can be seen as akin to a form of Wheel warring. As such, at the very least, I would support the ban proposal by Rlevse (talk · contribs), above. However, grounds for more significant sanctions, per WP:WHEEL disruption from a sysop, could also be proposed and considered, but that would probably have to be addressed by ArbCom. -- Cirt (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's only wheel-warring if you revert a revert. AFAIK, DS has not done that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, quite right. -- Cirt (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I've specifically avoided doing that because it would be a wheel war, and strong feelings about something that'll only be up for six hours aren't worth such a fuss. I haven't done any full double reverts, although I've done some partials (for instance, if I remove hook #3 and modify the grammar of hook #5 slightly, and then my edit gets blanket-reverted, I will restore my modification of the grammar of hook #5). But that's not what you meant. DS (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of my fussing with DYK content, I've just yanked a historical entry from the queue (not, you'll note, from the active template) because the wording of the hook felt ... incompatible with the statements in the article. I also removed the Credit tag, and I restored the hook to the Suggestions page and appended my reasoning. Good? DS (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Didn't you see the editors just above saying that they think you shouldn't be yanking entries at all without first discussing here? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

DS you're also still totally ignoring the issue that your idea of fictional hooks is out of sync with everyone else's. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse (talk · contribs), how would you propose to go about assessing consensus for a ban from DYK activity for this user? Seems an appropriate step forward at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How about just voting on a proposal that DS is welcome to participate in reviews at T:TDYK or to post error reports about articles in queue here, but not to edit the queues, prep pages, or main template directly? That appears to be the general consensus (at least based on my skim of the above discussion). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Now proposed, see subsection, below. -- Cirt (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven DYK ban proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:DragonflySixtyseven_DYK_ban_proposal.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ban proposal: DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) is welcome to participate in reviews at T:TDYK or to post error reports about articles in queue here, but not to edit the queues, prep pages, or main template directly. Support, as proposed (wording as recommended [15] by Rjanag). -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Obvious oppose, to the extent that my opinion matters here. DS (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC) It would help if you gave a reason why you oppose, or suggested some alternative solution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Uh, I oppose because I disagree with limiting my ability to correct sentence structure and punctuation errors. This is just a reminder that I shouldn't go five days without checking the DYK suggestions. I don't anticipate seeing any more problems make it all the way to the prep queue or the front page before I object to their content, but I do anticipate seeing minor glitches that need correcting. DS (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC) The issue is not just about gnomish edits. In your most recent comments in the above section you still were saying you thought it was ok for you to remove entire hooks without discussion, and that is what people were complaining about (I don't see anyone complaining about punctuation fixes). The reason people were suggesting a ban is because they don't want you removing hooks without discussion and that you still have not given any indication that you understand that this is a problem. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Are you saying that it's problematic to remove a hook that's factually incorrect? DS (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) There are many people watching this page all the time, so in the event that you think a hook is bad you can leave a note here (as has been suggested repeatedly above) and, if the hook really is bad, someone will react quickly. The issue, made clear from the above discussion, is that some editors here do not trust your judgment about what hooks can and can't be removed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And for the record, okay. If a hook which I feel is completely inappropriate to the point of indicating <generic personal attack on the nominator and everyone involved in approving it> has gotten all the way to the front page anyway, and it's not in violation of one of the other criteria, I'll let it stand. It's just a reminder to myself to not let the queue go five days without filtering out the garbage. DS (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Restoring a factually incorrect hook for the sake of process is a clear violation of WP:POINT. SORRY, MY MISTAKE DS (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Who's restoring factually incorrect hooks? No one said anything about restoring factually incorrect hooks. What I said, and what everyone is saying as far as I can tell, is that your idea of what kinds of hooks are bad is at odds with everyone else's idea of what kind of hooks are bad, and they don't want you enforcing your idea on everyone else. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you don't understand the editors' complaints here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, my mistake. Cirt restored a factually-inaccurate hook, but I hadn't properly indicated why it was factually inaccurate. Sorry; I retract that specific comment. DS (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Not too much different from what us non-admin DYKers can do. Is a good proposal, support. However further discussion is needed on the rule that led us to this in the first place. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Procedural question I haven't read enough of the relevant discussions to voice an opinion, but I have to ask. Is this within the power of this talk page, or would this discussion be better suited for AN? Courcelles 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC) A notice has been posted to WP:AN, therefore this question is satisfied. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC) I don't see how AN is relevant. DYK is a WikiProject and in the past has always been able to make its own decisions about these kinds of things (although I think it's been rare for anyone to be formally banned). AN would only be relevant if people were complaining about abuse of admin tools or looking for a desysop or something. This proposal is essentially, as Strange Passerby points out, asking the user not to use his admin tools in this project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC) But if we decide in favor of the ban, and DS does not comply, and what happens next? --BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Discussion of more significant escalated sanctions. -- Cirt (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)The reason this is relevant is... what would you do if this is enacted here, and DS67 acts otherwise? Would ArbCom desysop? Would someone block? Or are we asking nicely and calling it a "ban", because if there are no teeth behind it, that's what this really is. The reason AN is relevant is that AN has, by long history and clear precedent, the power to impose binding restrictions that mean something. To draw a parallel, if DYK is a Wikiproject similar to any other; would a discussion on WT:OLYMPICS to ban an editor from certain articles under the project's scope be enforceable? I would tend to say it wouldn't. I'm sorry to be a pain about this, I really am... in fact, I probably protest more against this being used in future as precedent than against the proposal under consideration here, but is enacting bans on a WikiProject talk page really something we want to see? Courcelles 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Bans come from consensus. If members of a project make a clear consensus that they do not want a particular editor editing that project's pages (not articles within the scope of that project, but the project pages themselves) and the editor keeps editing them, then it's still obviously a violation. Besides, what is the point of rushing off to AN to get formal injunctions now, before doing something here to determine once and for all whether there really is consensus for this? There's no point looking for legalese at AN unless someone can demonstrate consensus here that such an injunction is needed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:DragonflySixtyseven_DYK_ban_proposal, ban proposal will take place there. -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)